Elmwood Care Center

Name: Elmwood Care Center
Address: 2829 SHATTUCK AVENUE, Berkeley, CA, 94705, US
Telephone: 5106652800

2829 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94705 · Alameda County · 74 certified beds · avg 67 residents/day · certified since Apr 19, 2005

Part of chain: PRATAP PODDATOORI (6 facilities, chain avg rating 3.5★)

3/5

Health inspection rating (on-site)

Serious findings on record

Fines, last 3 years

4.60

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: 3/5

⚠ The most recent standard health inspection was more than 2 years ago — conditions may have changed.

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 · Feb 18, 2026 · 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: Apr 1, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (41)

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
Jun 25, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. · from a complaint
Apr 22, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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. · from a complaint
Feb 18, 2026	▲ 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
Jan 7, 2026	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. · from a complaint
Jan 7, 2026	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 25, 2025	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
Nov 25, 2025	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
Sep 18, 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. · from a complaint
Jun 6, 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. · from a complaint
Dec 5, 2024	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
Jul 18, 2024	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	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.
Jul 18, 2024	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The facility did not have a policy covering how food brought in by family and visitors is used and stored safely.
Jul 18, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The 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.
Jul 18, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not prepare and serve food in a form that meets each resident's individual needs — for example, chopped, pureed, or softened food for residents with chewing or swallowing problems.
Jul 18, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not make sure special medical diets — like low-sodium or diabetic diets — were properly ordered by the resident's doctor or managed by a qualified dietitian as state law allows.
Jul 18, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The 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.
Jul 18, 2024	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.
Jul 18, 2024	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.
Jul 18, 2024	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.
Jul 18, 2024	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.
Jul 28, 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.
Jul 28, 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.
Jul 28, 2022	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate.
Jul 28, 2022	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Jul 28, 2022	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.
Jul 28, 2022	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.
Jul 28, 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.
Jul 28, 2022	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.
Jul 28, 2022	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Jul 28, 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.
Jul 28, 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.
Jul 28, 2022	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
Jul 28, 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.
Dec 12, 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.
Dec 12, 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.
Dec 12, 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.
Dec 12, 2019	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.
Dec 12, 2019	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.
Dec 12, 2019	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.
Dec 12, 2019	B · Minimal risk, repeated	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.
Dec 12, 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 stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (13 → 10).

Year	Citations	Serious (G–L)	Worst severity that year
2019	8	0	E
2022	13	0	E
2024	11	0	F
2025	4	0	E
2026	5	1	G ▲

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)

0 fines totaling $0, plus 1 Medicare payment denial period.

Date	Type	Amount / length
Feb 18, 2026	Payment Denial	7 days from Mar 25, 2026

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)	4.60	4.31	3.95	top 24% in California; top 20% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours	1.13	0.61	0.69	top 8% in California; top 11% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing	4.26	3.90	3.50	top 22% in California; top 16% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)	0.68	0.51	0.48	top 16% in California; top 17% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)	58.3	36.7	45.8	bottom 4% in California; bottom 19% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)	35.3	38.1	42.9	top 47% in California; top 39% 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 4.29, RN 1.05, weekend 3.97. 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: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 2/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Individual

Owner / manager	Type	Role	Stake	Since
Poddatoori, Pratap	Individual	5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest	100%	01/28/2005
Andres, Norma	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	04/19/2005
Andres, Norma	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	04/19/2005
Cabrera, Yessenia	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	08/04/2025
Cabrera, Yessenia	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	08/04/2025
Dhugga, Gurpreet	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	02/01/2020
Dhugga, Gurpreet	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	02/01/2020
Grisby, Andre	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	12/18/2023
Grisby, Andre	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	12/18/2023
Guerrero, Sylvia	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	09/01/2022
Guerrero, Sylvia	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	09/01/2022
He, Shanni	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	03/03/2024
He, Shanni	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	03/03/2024
Hycare INC	Organization	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	09/07/2006
Hycare INC	Organization	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	10/10/2025
Liang, Susie	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	10/13/2025
Liang, Susie	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	10/13/2025
McGregor, Terrance	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	04/19/2005
McGregor, Terrance	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	04/19/2005
Padania, Hilda	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	07/16/2025

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 care for residents with incontinence or catheters, and what do you do to prevent urinary tract infections?"
"What systems do you use to prevent medication errors, and what happens when one occurs?"
"Can we tour the resident rooms, bathrooms, and common areas today, including areas not on the usual tour route?"
"Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
"When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
"If someone reports suspected abuse or neglect here, what happens in the first 24 hours?"
"Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
"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
Ashby Care Center	0.2 mi	Berkeley, CA	★★☆☆☆	2/5
Kyakameena Care Center	0.3 mi	Berkeley, CA	★★★☆☆	3/5
Berkeley Pines Skilled Nursing Center	0.6 mi	Berkeley, CA	★★☆☆☆	2/5
Chaparral House	1.3 mi	Berkeley, CA	★★★★★	4/5
The Rehabilitation Center of Oakland	2.2 mi	Oakland, CA	★☆☆☆☆	1/5
Piedmont Gardens Health Facility	2.4 mi	Oakland, CA	★★★★★	5/5
Oakland Healthcare & Wellness Center	2.7 mi	Oakland, CA	★★★★★	4/5
McClure Post Acute	2.7 mi	Oakland, CA	★★★★★	5/5
Medical Hill Healthcare Center	2.7 mi	Oakland, CA	★★★★★	4/5
Lake Merritt Healthcare Center LLC	3.2 mi	Oakland, CA	★★☆☆☆	2/5
St Paul's Towers	3.2 mi	Oakland, CA	★★★★★	4/5
Shields Nursing Center	3.5 mi	El Cerrito, CA	★★★★☆	3/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Berkeley →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555819.

The Care File

Visit checklist — Elmwood Care Center

2829 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94705 · 5106652800

Health inspection rating 3/5 · CMS overall 3/5· Fines (3y): $0

Most serious findings on record:

▲ Feb 18, 2026 (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 care for residents with incontinence or catheters, and what do you do to prevent urinary tract infections?"
☐ "What systems do you use to prevent medication errors, and what happens when one occurs?"
☐ "Can we tour the resident rooms, bathrooms, and common areas today, including areas not on the usual tour route?"
☐ "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
☐ "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
☐ "If someone reports suspected abuse or neglect here, what happens in the first 24 hours?"
☐ "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
☐ "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 555819 · Verify at medicare.gov/care-compare · Printed from The Care File (thecarefile.com)