California ›Castro Valley

East Bay Post-Acute

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

20259 Lake Chabot Road, Castro Valley, CA 94546 (opens Google Maps) · Alameda County · (510) 351-3700· 91 certified beds · avg 84 residents/day · certified since Sep 1, 1972 · 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★)

1/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Nov 17, 2025
2
Serious findings on record
most recent Jan 12, 2024
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.53
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: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5 · 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 · Jan 12, 2024 · F-0755 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.

Why it matters: Weak pharmacy services lead to medication mistakes, delays, and missed drug interactions that can seriously harm residents.

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: Feb 12, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jan 12, 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: Feb 12, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 58 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

  1. 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. · from a complaint F-0600

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

    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 F-0609

  3. F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread

    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

View all 58 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
Apr 7, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0600
Apr 7, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0609
Dec 3, 2025F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe 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
Nov 17, 2025F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not make its inspection results easy for residents to see, or made it hard for residents to contact advocacy agencies like the ombudsman. · F-0577
Nov 17, 2025F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. · F-0801
Nov 17, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Nov 17, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641
Nov 17, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684
Nov 17, 2025E · 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
Nov 17, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility was not properly licensed, or did not operate in compliance with federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and accepted professional standards. · F-0836
Nov 17, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842
Nov 17, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not help a resident get vision and hearing services — such as eye exams, glasses, hearing tests, or hearing aids. · F-0685
Nov 17, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692
Nov 17, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0700
Nov 17, 2025D · 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
Nov 17, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Nov 17, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Nov 17, 2025D · 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. · F-0880
Oct 24, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0684
Aug 29, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0684
Aug 29, 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 16, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. · from a complaint · F-0814
Jan 12, 2024▲ G · Actual 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
Jan 12, 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
Jan 12, 2024F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. · F-0801
Jan 12, 2024F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe 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
Jan 12, 2024F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804
Jan 12, 2024F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe 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
Jan 12, 2024F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not have a policy covering how food brought in by family and visitors is used and stored safely. · F-0813
Jan 12, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Jan 12, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not update each resident's care assessment at least once every 3 months. These regular check-ins keep the resident's care plan matched to their current condition. · F-0638
Jan 12, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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 12, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · F-0726
Jan 12, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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 12, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service. · F-0802
Jan 12, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives. · F-0806
Jan 12, 2024E · 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
Jan 12, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. · F-0908
Jan 12, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 12, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not make sure care was delivered by qualified people following each resident's written care plan — the individualized document that spells out exactly what care that resident is supposed to receive. · F-0659
Jan 12, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0677
Jan 12, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684
Jan 12, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692
Jan 12, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Jan 12, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Jan 12, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842
Jan 12, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not have a working call system — the button or cord residents use to summon help — in each resident's bathroom and bathing area. · F-0919
Jan 12, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · from a complaint · F-0580
Jan 12, 2024B · Potential for minimal harm, patternThe 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
Sep 20, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Jun 17, 2022E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Jun 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
Jun 17, 2022D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not help a resident get vision and hearing services — such as eye exams, glasses, hearing tests, or hearing aids. · F-0685
Jun 17, 2022D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide proper foot care for residents. Foot care includes routine care like nail trimming and attention to foot problems, which matter greatly for older adults. · F-0687
Jun 17, 2022D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0688
Jun 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
Jun 17, 2022D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide routine dental care and 24-hour emergency dental care for residents. · F-0790
Jun 17, 2022D · 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. · F-0880

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (25 → 15).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2022
All citations: 8
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 31
Serious citations (G–L): 2
2025
All citations: 16
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 0

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

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202280E
202310D
2024312G ▲
2025160F
202620D

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: 3.53
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.70
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.24
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)3.534.313.95bottom 12% in California; bottom 38% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.700.610.69top 24% in California; top 37% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.243.903.50bottom 13% in California; bottom 44% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.660.510.48top 17% in California; top 18% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)44.036.745.8bottom 28% in California; top 47% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)35.338.142.9top 47% in California; top 39% 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 3.88, RN 0.76, weekend 3.56.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.88 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 East Bay Post-Acute. 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 - Individual

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Apt, FrederickIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Dhugga, GurpreetIndividualContracted Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2023
Hancock, MarkIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Jergensen, JoshuaIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Mitchell, JohnIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Oyler, AbrahamIndividualContracted Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE02/01/2023

All 6 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.

  • "How does your pharmacist review residents' medications, and how quickly can you fill new or urgent prescriptions?"
  • "What systems do you use to prevent medication errors, and what happens when one occurs?"
  • "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
  • "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
  • "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
  • "Where do you post your latest state inspection results and the ombudsman's contact information?"
  • "Do you have a qualified dietician on staff, and how involved are they in each resident's nutrition plan?"
  • "How do you record and honor each resident's treatment wishes and advance directives, and how do staff know about them?"

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 44% 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 (12 closest of 107 within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Valley Pointe Nursing & Rehabilitation Center0.0 miCastro Valley, CA★★★★★4/5
Baywood Court Health Center0.9 miCastro Valley, CA★★★★★5/5
St John Kronstadt Convalescent Center1.3 miCastro Valley, CA★★★★★4/5
Canyon Creek Post-Acute1.3 miCastro Valley, CA★★★★☆4/5
We Care Skilled Nursing Facility1.4 miHayward, CA★★★★★4/5
Morton Bakar Center1.4 miHayward, CA★★★★★5/5
Sage Post Acute1.5 miHayward, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Hayward Hills Health Care Center1.6 miHayward, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Hayward Gardens Post Acute1.6 miHayward, CA★★★★★4/5
Golden Harbor Healthcare Center1.6 miHayward, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Bethesda Home1.7 miHayward, CA★★★☆☆4/5
All Saint's Maubert1.7 miSan Leandro, CA★★☆☆☆2/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

Other facilities in the same county

CMS records place this facility in Alameda, CA — 69 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 Castro Valley →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 055239.

This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).

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