Creekside Post-Acute

Name: Creekside Post-Acute
Address: 3580 PAYNE AVENUE, San Jose, CA, 95117, US
Telephone: 4082487100

3580 Payne Avenue, San Jose, CA 95117 · Santa Clara County · 130 certified beds · avg 123 residents/day · certified since Mar 12, 1968

Part of chain: LINKS HEALTHCARE GROUP (32 facilities, chain avg rating 2.9★)

4/5

Health inspection rating (on-site)

Serious findings on record

$20,248

Fines, last 3 years

4.30

Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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

Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 5/5

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 · Aug 9, 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: Sep 4, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (42)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

Date	Severity	What the facility was cited for
Sep 23, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The 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
Sep 23, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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
Jun 10, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The 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. · from a complaint
Apr 15, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The 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
Dec 5, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives.
Dec 5, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Dec 5, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Nov 8, 2024	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The 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. · from a complaint
Nov 8, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The 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
Nov 8, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · from a complaint
Sep 6, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Aug 30, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The 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
Aug 9, 2024	▲ G · Actual harm, one-off	The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Aug 9, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The 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
Jul 18, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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. · from a complaint
Feb 23, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The 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
Feb 22, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · from a complaint
Feb 22, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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
Feb 22, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint
Aug 8, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The 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. · from a complaint
Jan 10, 2022	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The 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.
Jan 10, 2022	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Jan 10, 2022	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Jan 10, 2022	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Jan 10, 2022	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care.
Jan 10, 2022	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives.
Jan 10, 2022	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Jan 10, 2022	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Jan 10, 2022	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Jan 10, 2022	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Jan 10, 2022	B · Minimal risk, repeated	The facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms.
Jun 6, 2019	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Jun 6, 2019	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Jun 6, 2019	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Jun 6, 2019	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not give residents the required written notice of their rights, the facility's rules, the services offered, and what those services cost.
Jun 6, 2019	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Jun 6, 2019	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline.
Jun 6, 2019	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.
Jun 6, 2019	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Jun 6, 2019	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Jun 6, 2019	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Jun 6, 2019	B · Minimal risk, repeated	The facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (11 → 3).

Year	Citations	Serious (G–L)	Worst severity that year
2019	11	0	E
2022	11	0	E
2023	1	0	D
2024	15	1	G ▲
2025	4	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)

1 fine totaling $20,248.

Date	Type	Amount / length
Jul 18, 2024	Fine	$20,248

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

Measure	This facility	California avg	U.S. avg	Where it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)	4.30	4.31	3.95	top 38% in California; top 29% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours	0.80	0.61	0.69	top 17% in California; top 27% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing	3.97	3.90	3.50	top 35% in California; top 24% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)	0.57	0.51	0.48	top 24% in California; top 26% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)	57.2	36.7	45.8	bottom 5% in California; bottom 21% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)	61.1	38.1	42.9	bottom 14% in California; bottom 20% 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 4.15, RN 0.77, weekend 3.83. 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: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / manager	Type	Role	Stake	Since
Beardsley, Mary	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	06/01/2022
Beardsley, Mary	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	06/01/2022
Bernholz, Victoria	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	06/01/2022
Bernholz, Victoria	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	06/01/2022
Carter, Melissa	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	06/01/2022
Carter, Melissa	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	06/01/2022
Eide Bailly LLP	Organization	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	06/01/2022
Forbright Bank	Organization	5% or Greater Security Interest	NOT APPLICABLE	06/01/2022
Frojelin, Antonette	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	06/01/2022
Frojelin, Antonette	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	06/01/2022
Links Healthcare Group LLC	Organization	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	06/01/2022
Links Healthcare Group LLC	Organization	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	06/27/2025
Links Support Services, LLC	Organization	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	06/01/2022
Links Support Services, LLC	Organization	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	06/27/2025
Reichert, Josie	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	06/01/2022
Reichert, Josie	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	06/01/2022
Rodriguez, Curtis	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	06/01/2022
Rodriguez, Curtis	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	06/01/2022
Rodriguez, Curtis	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	06/01/2022
Romney, Gunner	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	07/03/2024

Questions to ask on your visit

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

"What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
"How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
"Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
"Are staff on every shift trained and certified in CPR, and how do they know each resident's resuscitation wishes?"
"Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
"Who completes resident assessments here, and how do you check them for accuracy?"
"How do you screen new residents for mental health and disability-related needs, and how do you provide the specialized services they require?"
"How do you make sure resident assessments are completed and submitted to the state on time?"
"What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
"Can I see the results and plan of correction from your most recent state inspection?"

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

Facility	Distance	City	Overall	Inspection
A Grace Sub Acute & Skilled Care	0.6 mi	San Jose, CA	★★★★☆	3/5
Baywood Post Acute	1.2 mi	Campbell, CA	★★★☆☆	3/5
Courtyard Care Center	1.5 mi	San Jose, CA	★★★☆☆	3/5
Empress Care Center, LLC	1.6 mi	San Jose, CA	★★★★☆	2/5
White Blossom Care Center	1.8 mi	San Jose, CA	★★☆☆☆	1/5
Camden Postacute Care, INC	2.1 mi	Campbell, CA	★★★★☆	3/5
Skyline Healthcare Center - San Jose	2.1 mi	San Jose, CA	★☆☆☆☆	1/5
O'Connor Hospital D/P SNF	2.1 mi	San Jose, CA	★★★★★	5/5
Westwood Post Acute	2.2 mi	San Jose, CA	★★☆☆☆	1/5
The Win Post-Acute	2.4 mi	Santa Clara, CA	★★★★★	4/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in San Jose →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 055884.

The Care File

Visit checklist — Creekside Post-Acute

3580 Payne Avenue, San Jose, CA 95117 · 4082487100

Health inspection rating 4/5 · CMS overall 5/5· Fines (3y): $20,248

Most serious findings on record:

▲ Aug 9, 2024 (F-0689, Actual harm, one-off): The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Questions for the administrator:

☐ "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
☐ "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
☐ "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
☐ "Are staff on every shift trained and certified in CPR, and how do they know each resident's resuscitation wishes?"
☐ "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
☐ "Who completes resident assessments here, and how do you check them for accuracy?"
☐ "How do you screen new residents for mental health and disability-related needs, and how do you provide the specialized services they require?"
☐ "How do you make sure resident assessments are completed and submitted to the state on time?"
☐ "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
☐ "Can I see the results and plan of correction from your most recent state inspection?"

While you're there, notice:

☐ Smell and cleanliness in hallways, not just the lobby
☐ How staff speak to residents; call lights answered promptly
☐ Residents up, dressed, and engaged (visit mealtimes and a weekend if you can)

Data: CMS Provider Data Catalog, version 2026-08-01 · CCN 055884 · Verify at medicare.gov/care-compare · Printed from The Care File (thecarefile.com)