How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Dinuba Healthcare
1730 South College Ave., Dinuba, CA 93618 (opens Google Maps) · Tulare County · (559) 591-3300· 97 certified beds · avg 90 residents/day · certified since Jan 1, 1967 · 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: MADISON CREEK PARTNERS (13 facilities, chain avg rating 3.2★)
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jan 8, 2026
1
Serious findings on record
most recent Aug 18, 2023
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.47
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: 4/5 · 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 · Aug 18, 2023 · 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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Aug 18, 2023 · 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): 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: Aug 23, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 26 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
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. F-0578
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. F-0550
View all 26 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 9, 2026 | 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 |
| Jan 8, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0578 |
| Jan 8, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0550 |
| Jan 8, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0640 |
| Jan 8, 2026 | 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 |
| Jan 8, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. · F-0679 |
| Jan 8, 2026 | 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 |
| Jan 8, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Jan 8, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804 |
| Jan 8, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · F-0921 |
| Oct 1, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the social services residents need — such as counseling, help with adjustment, or connecting to outside resources — to achieve the best possible quality of life. · from a complaint · F-0745 |
| Jul 18, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804 |
| Jul 18, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Jul 18, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not give residents proper notice about what Medicare or Medicaid covers, or about charges the resident might owe for services that aren't covered. · F-0582 |
| Jul 18, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641 |
| Jul 18, 2024 | C · Potential for minimal harm, widespread | 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. · F-0732 |
| Jan 3, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 18, 2023 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | 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 · F-0689 |
| May 12, 2022 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 12, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0656 |
| May 12, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. · F-0679 |
| May 12, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0550 |
| May 12, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0578 |
| May 12, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0636 |
| May 12, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641 |
| May 12, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (5 → 9).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2022
All citations: 8
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2024
All citations: 7
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 10
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 | 8 | 0 | F |
| 2023 | 1 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2024 | 7 | 0 | F |
| 2026 | 10 | 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)
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: 4.47
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.29
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 4.18
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) | 4.47 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 30% in California; top 24% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.29 | 0.61 | 0.69 | bottom 11% in California; bottom 9% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.18 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 24% in California; top 18% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.20 | 0.51 | 0.48 | bottom 10% in California; bottom 12% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 33.3 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 40% in California; top 20% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 40.0 | 38.1 | 42.9 | bottom 47% in California; top 46% 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 3.94, RN 0.26, weekend 3.69.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.94 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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 2/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Dinuba Healthcare. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bigelow, Brandon | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/29/2020 |
| Bigelow, Brandon | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/29/2020 |
| Christensen, Covey | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/28/2014 |
| Christensen, Covey | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/28/2014 |
| Christensen, Covey | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/28/2014 |
| Clegg, Michael | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/26/2023 |
| Clegg, Michael | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/26/2023 |
| Clegg, Michael | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/26/2023 |
| Hopkins, Amber | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2021 |
| Hopkins, Amber | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2021 |
| Madison Creek Partners LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/28/2014 |
| Madison Creek Partners LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/11/2025 |
| Swehli, Ehab | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2023 |
| Swehli, Ehab | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2023 |
All 14 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 Madison Creek Partners — 13 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.
- Madison Grove Post Acute — Redlands, CA · overall 3/5
- Parkway Hills Nursing & Rehabilitation — La Mesa, CA · overall 3/5
- Gardens, the — Colorado Springs, CO · overall 5/5
- Glenwood Springs Healthcare — Glenwood Springs, CO · overall 2/5
- Lakewood Villa — Lakewood, CO · overall 4/5
- Paonia Care and Rehabilitation Center — Paonia, CO · overall 1/5abuse
- Pioneer Health Care Center — Rocky Ford, CO · overall 4/5
- Pueblo Heights Nursing and Rehabilitation — Pueblo, CO · overall 2/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 12 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.
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "How do you record and honor each resident's treatment wishes and advance directives, and how do staff know about them?"
- "Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
- "How do you make sure resident assessments are completed and submitted to the state on time?"
- "How do you help residents maintain their daily living skills, and how do you measure whether it's working?"
- "Can I see this month's activities calendar, and what do you offer residents who can't leave their rooms?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
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 33% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 14 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 16 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Palm Village Retirement Comm. | 4.8 mi | Reedley, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Vineyard Care Center | 4.9 mi | Reedley, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Sierra View Homes | 5.3 mi | Reedley, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Kingsburg Center | 9.4 mi | Kingsburg, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Bethel Lutheran Home | 11.9 mi | Selma, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Rolling Hills Care Center | 12.5 mi | Selma, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Visalia Post Acute | 14.7 mi | Visalia, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Delta Healthcare & Wellness Center, LP | 14.7 mi | Visalia, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Linwood Meadows Care Center | 14.7 mi | Visalia, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Westgate Gardens Care Center | 14.8 mi | Visalia, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Sequoia Vista | 14.9 mi | Visalia, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Cornerstone Care Center | 15.5 mi | Sanger, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Tulare, CA — 16 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Gateway Post Acute — Porterville, CA · overall 2/5
- Grand Oaks Care — Tulare, CA · overall 3/5
- Kaweah Health Skilled Nursing Center — Visalia, CA · overall 5/5
- Lindsay Gardens Nursing & Rehabilitation — Lindsay, CA · overall 4/5
- Orchards at Tulare — Tulare, CA · overall 1/5
- River Walk Care Center — Porterville, CA · overall 2/5
- Sequoia Transitional Care — Porterville, 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 055448.