How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Creekside Healthcare Center
1900 Church Lane, San Pablo, CA 94806 (opens Google Maps) · Contra Costa County · (510) 235-5514· 80 certified beds · avg 70 residents/day · certified since Feb 11, 1970 · 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: MARINER HEALTH CARE (17 facilities, chain avg rating 3.6★)
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Aug 8, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.28
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: 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.
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 21 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not let a resident or their legal representative see or buy copies of the resident's own records. · from a complaint F-0573
The facility did not coordinate resident assessments with the state's pre-admission screening program for mental illness and intellectual disabilities, or failed to refer residents for the special services they need. F-0644
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. F-0880
View all 21 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Feb 23, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not let a resident or their legal representative see or buy copies of the resident's own records. · from a complaint · F-0573 |
| Aug 8, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not coordinate resident assessments with the state's pre-admission screening program for mental illness and intellectual disabilities, or failed to refer residents for the special services they need. · F-0644 |
| Aug 8, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0880 |
| Aug 8, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| May 24, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests. · F-0925 |
| May 24, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| May 24, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| May 24, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not properly inform residents or their representatives about arbitration agreements — contracts that give up the right to sue in court — including their right to refuse to sign. · F-0847 |
| May 24, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684 |
| May 24, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| May 24, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| May 24, 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 |
| May 24, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility was not properly licensed, or did not operate in compliance with federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and accepted professional standards. · F-0836 |
| Apr 11, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 · F-0657 |
| May 5, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| May 5, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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. · F-0803 |
| May 5, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804 |
| May 5, 2022 | 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 |
| May 5, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0600 |
| May 5, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0657 |
| May 5, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations. · F-0883 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (9 → 3).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2022
All citations: 7
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 10
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 3
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 1
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 7 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 10 | 0 | F |
| 2025 | 3 | 0 | E |
| 2026 | 1 | 0 | D |
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: 4.28
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 1.54
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.95
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) | 4.28 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 40% in California; top 30% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 1.54 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 4% in California; top 4% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.95 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 36% in California; top 24% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 1.65 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 4% in California; top 2% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 38.8 | 36.7 | 45.8 | bottom 42% in California; top 33% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 40.7 | 38.1 | 42.9 | bottom 42% in California; top 49% 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 5.13, RN 1.85, weekend 4.74.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (5.13 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 5/5.
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: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Creekside Healthcare 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 - Partnership
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GC Holding Company 2 LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 99% | 06/30/2015 |
| Grancare LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 06/30/2015 |
| Grunstein, Emily | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 02/06/2019 |
| Mariner Health Care, INC. | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 06/30/2015 |
| MHC Holding Company | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 06/30/2015 |
| MHC West Holding Company | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 06/30/2015 |
| National Senior Care, INC. | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 06/30/2015 |
| Creekside Holding Company GP LLC | Organization | General Partnership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/30/2015 |
| Dhugga, Gurpreet | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2022 |
| Dhugga, Gurpreet | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2022 |
| GC Holding Company 2 LLC | Organization | Limited Partnership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/30/2015 |
| Kaur, Navjot | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/09/2026 |
| Kaur, Navjot | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/09/2026 |
| Rotich, Janet | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/30/2015 |
| Rotich, Janet | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/24/2000 |
| Rotich, Janet | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/24/2000 |
| Sarcauga, Dennis | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/06/2025 |
| Sarcauga, Dennis | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/06/2025 |
| Sarcauga, Dennis | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/06/2025 |
All 19 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 Mariner Health Care — 17 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.
- Driftwood Healthcare Center - Hayward — Hayward, CA · overall 3/5
- Driftwood Healthcare Center - Santa Cruz — Santa Cruz, CA · overall 4/5
- Fremont Healthcare Center — Fremont, CA · overall 4/5
- Fruitvale Healthcare Center — Oakland, CA · overall 5/5
- Hayward Hills Health Care Center — Hayward, CA · overall 3/5
- Inglewood Health Care Center — Inglewood, CA · overall 2/5abuse
- La Crescenta Healthcare Center — La Crescenta, CA · overall 5/5
- Monterey Palms Health Care Center — Palm Desert, CA · overall 3/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 16 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.
- "If I ask for a copy of my family member's records, how quickly will I get them and what does it cost?"
- "How do you identify and arrange specialized services for residents with mental health conditions or disabilities?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "How does your pharmacist review residents' medications, and how quickly can you fill new or urgent prescriptions?"
- "How is pest control handled here, and when was the last treatment or inspection?"
- "What is your current medication error rate, and what have you changed to bring errors down?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "Is signing an arbitration agreement required for admission, and can we refuse it without affecting my family member's care?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 39% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 19 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 86 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vale Healthcare Center | 0.1 mi | San Pablo, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| San Pablo Healthcare & Wellness Center | 0.6 mi | San Pablo, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Richmond Post Acute Care | 0.9 mi | Richmond, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Greenridge Post Acute | 2.2 mi | El Sobrante, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Shields Richmond Nursing Center | 2.3 mi | Richmond, CA | ★★★★☆ | 2/5 | |
| Shields Nursing Center | 4.4 mi | El Cerrito, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Chaparral House | 6.8 mi | Berkeley, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Kyakameena Care Center | 7.7 mi | Berkeley, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Elmwood Care Center | 7.9 mi | Berkeley, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Ashby Care Center | 8.0 mi | Berkeley, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Berkeley Pines Skilled Nursing Center | 8.3 mi | Berkeley, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| The Rehabilitation Center of Oakland | 10.0 mi | Oakland, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Contra Costa, CA — 30 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Danville Post-Acute Rehab — Danville, CA · overall 4/5
- Delta View Post Acute — Antioch, CA · overall 4/5
- Diablo Valley Post Acute — Concord, CA · overall 2/5abuse
- Diamond Ridge Healthcare Center — Pittsburg, CA · overall 2/5
- La Casa via Transitional Care Center — Walnut Creek, CA · overall 5/5
- Legacy Post Acute Care — Martinez, CA · overall 5/5
- Lone Tree Post Acute — Antioch, CA · overall 4/5
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 055099.