612 Main Street, Soledad, CA 93960 (opens Google Maps) · Monterey County · (831) 678-2462· 59 certified beds · avg 49 residents/day · certified since Jan 15, 1993 · 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 →
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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jan 16, 2024 · F-0678 · triggered by a complaint
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.
Why it matters: In a cardiac or breathing emergency, failure to start CPR promptly can be the difference between life and death.
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 3, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Sep 26, 2023 · F-0622 · triggered by a complaint
The facility transferred or discharged a resident without a valid reason, or failed to provide the required documentation and information when moving a resident out.
Why it matters: Improper discharge or transfer can suddenly uproot a resident from their home and care without warning or recourse.
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: Oct 3, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Sep 26, 2023 · F-0742 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not provide appropriate treatment and services to residents with a mental health condition, difficulty adjusting emotionally, or a history of trauma or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Why it matters: Residents with mental health needs who go untreated can suffer worsening symptoms, distress, and isolation.
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: Oct 3, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 32 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not have a registered nurse on duty at least 8 hours a day, or did not have a registered nurse serving full-time as director of nursing. F-0727
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
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
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jan 22, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have a registered nurse on duty at least 8 hours a day, or did not have a registered nurse serving full-time as director of nursing. · F-0727 |
| Jan 22, 2025 | 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 |
| Jan 22, 2025 | 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 |
| Jan 22, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0636 |
| Jan 22, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · from a complaint · F-0638 |
| Jan 22, 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 |
| Jan 16, 2024 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | 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 · F-0678 |
| Sep 26, 2023 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility transferred or discharged a resident without a valid reason, or failed to provide the required documentation and information when moving a resident out. · from a complaint · F-0622 |
| Sep 26, 2023 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not provide appropriate treatment and services to residents with a mental health condition, difficulty adjusting emotionally, or a history of trauma or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). · from a complaint · F-0742 |
| Sep 26, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0623 |
| Sep 26, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0644 |
| Sep 26, 2023 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0684 |
| Sep 25, 2023 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0684 |
| Sep 5, 2023 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0636 |
| Sep 5, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure resident assessments were done by a qualified health professional. Assessments guide all of a resident's care, so the person doing them must be properly trained. · from a complaint · F-0642 |
| Sep 5, 2023 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0684 |
| Oct 7, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Oct 7, 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 |
| Oct 7, 2022 | 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 |
| Oct 7, 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 |
| Oct 7, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' right to make their own choices about their daily lives, such as when to wake up, what to eat, or how to spend their time. · F-0561 |
| Oct 7, 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 |
| Oct 7, 2022 | 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. · F-0656 |
| Oct 7, 2022 | 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 |
| Oct 7, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · F-0686 |
| Oct 7, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0688 |
| Oct 7, 2022 | 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 |
| Oct 7, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility used feeding tubes without a valid medical reason or the resident's agreement, or did not provide proper care to residents who have feeding tubes. · F-0693 |
| Oct 7, 2022 | 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 |
| Oct 7, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not educate residents and staff about COVID-19 vaccination, offer the vaccine to those eligible after that education, or properly document everyone's vaccination status. · F-0887 |
| Jul 31, 2019 | 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 |
| Jul 31, 2019 | 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 |
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (14 → 3).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 2 | 0 | D |
| 2022 | 14 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 9 | 2 | G ▲ |
| 2024 | 4 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2025 | 3 | 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.
How to file a complaint about care →
3 fines totaling $58,191.
Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Jan 16, 2024 | Fine | $34,668 |
| Oct 2, 2023 | Fine | $3,145 |
| Sep 25, 2023 | Fine | $20,378 |
What these staffing numbers mean →
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) | 4.88 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 18% in California; top 15% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.54 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 41% in California; bottom 43% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.01 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 33% in California; top 22% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.22 | 0.51 | 0.48 | bottom 15% in California; bottom 16% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 51.7 | 36.7 | 45.8 | bottom 11% in California; bottom 32% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 50.0 | 38.1 | 42.9 | bottom 29% in California; bottom 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 4.48, RN 0.49, weekend 3.68.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.48 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.
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: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Eden Valley Care Center. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
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.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
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 →
Non profit - Other
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pritt, Steven | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/15/1998 |
| Pritt, Steven | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/15/1998 |
| Pritt, Steven | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/15/1998 |
All 3 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| George L Mee Memorial Hospital D/P SNF | 18.9 mi | King City, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 |
Compare this facility with the 1 closest →
CMS records place this facility in Monterey, CA — 14 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.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555538.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details