Delta View Post Acute
1210 A Street, Antioch, CA 94509 · Contra Costa County · 99 certified beds · avg 94 residents/day · certified since Jun 1, 1974
Part of chain: PACS GROUP (274 facilities, chain avg rating 2.9★)
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
1
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.89
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 · Nov 22, 2019 · F-0689
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 21, 2020 (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 |
|---|---|---|
| May 4, 2026 | 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 |
| Apr 29, 2026 | 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 |
| Apr 29, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not help a resident get vision and hearing services — such as eye exams, glasses, hearing tests, or hearing aids. · from a complaint |
| Feb 5, 2026 | 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 |
| Dec 9, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not let a resident or their legal representative see or buy copies of the resident's own records. · from a complaint |
| Dec 9, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not post its nurse staffing information every day. Nursing homes must publicly display how many nurses and aides are on duty each day. · from a complaint |
| Dec 9, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility was not properly licensed, or did not operate in compliance with federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and accepted professional standards. · from a complaint |
| Mar 13, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. |
| Mar 13, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Mar 13, 2025 | 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. |
| Mar 13, 2025 | 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. |
| Mar 13, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Mar 13, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. |
| Mar 13, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. |
| Mar 13, 2025 | 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. |
| Mar 13, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Mar 13, 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. |
| Mar 13, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not honor residents' individual preferences, choices, values, and beliefs in their daily life and care. |
| Mar 13, 2025 | 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. |
| Jan 13, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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 |
| Jan 13, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · from a complaint |
| Dec 15, 2023 | 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 |
| Nov 18, 2022 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Nov 18, 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. |
| Nov 18, 2022 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Nov 18, 2022 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. |
| Nov 18, 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. |
| Nov 18, 2022 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Nov 18, 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. |
| Nov 22, 2019 | ▲ 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. |
| Nov 22, 2019 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. |
| Nov 22, 2019 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. |
| Nov 22, 2019 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility used bed rails without first trying safer alternatives, or without assessing the resident's safety risk, discussing the risks and benefits with the resident or family, getting consent, and installing the rails correctly. |
| Nov 22, 2019 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide timely, quality laboratory tests to meet residents' needs. |
| Nov 22, 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. |
| Nov 22, 2019 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not have a policy covering how food brought in by family and visitors is used and stored safely. |
| Nov 22, 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. |
| Nov 22, 2019 | E · Potential for harm, 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. |
| Nov 22, 2019 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. |
| Nov 22, 2019 | 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. |
| Nov 22, 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. |
| Nov 22, 2019 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide or arrange dental services for its residents. Nursing homes are responsible for making sure residents can get dental care. |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (7 → 12).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 13 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2022 | 7 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 1 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 2 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 15 | 0 | E |
| 2026 | 4 | 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)
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
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) | 3.89 | 4.31 | 3.95 | bottom 34% in California; top 44% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.51 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 45% in California; bottom 40% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.51 | 3.90 | 3.50 | bottom 32% in California; top 41% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.37 | 0.51 | 0.48 | bottom 49% in California; bottom 46% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 24.2 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 15% in California; top 6% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 46.7 | 38.1 | 42.9 | bottom 32% in California; bottom 41% 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 4.18, RN 0.55, weekend 3.77. Staffing rating: 3/5.
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: 5/5
Who owns this facility
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apt, Frederick | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Dhugga, Gurpreet | Individual | Contracted Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/17/2023 |
| Hadley, Matthew | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/08/2024 |
| Hancock, Mark | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Jergensen, Joshua | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Mitchell, John | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
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 does your pharmacist review residents' medications, and how quickly can you fill new or urgent prescriptions?"
- "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
- "How do you arrange eye and hearing care for residents, including appointments and equipment like glasses or hearing aids?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "If I ask for a copy of my family member's records, how quickly will I get them and what does it cost?"
- "Where do you post your daily staffing numbers, and can I see today's?"
- "Can you tell me about this citation and confirm your license and compliance status today?"
- "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 | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lone Tree Post Acute | 3.1 mi | Antioch, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Diamond Ridge Healthcare Center | 3.3 mi | Pittsburg, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Pittsburg Skilled Nursing Center | 3.9 mi | Pittsburg, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Stonebrook Post Acute | 9.6 mi | Concord, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Diablo Valley Post Acute | 11.2 mi | Concord, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Willow Pass Healthcare Center | 11.6 mi | Concord, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Concord Post Acute | 12.5 mi | Concord, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Shadelands Post Acute | 12.7 mi | Walnut Creek, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Bayberry Skilled Nursing & Healthcare Center | 12.7 mi | Concord, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Pleasant Hill Post Acute | 14.6 mi | Pleasant Hill, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 056381.