California ›San Jose

Empress Care Center, LLC

1299 S. Bascom Avenue, San Jose, CA 95128 · Santa Clara County · 67 certified beds · avg 49 residents/day · certified since Feb 10, 1969

Part of chain: EVA CARE GROUP (9 facilities, chain avg rating 3.4★)

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.96
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · 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.

All citations in the current public record (44)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Apr 28, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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.
Apr 28, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Apr 28, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Apr 28, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility was not properly licensed, or did not operate in compliance with federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and accepted professional standards.
Apr 28, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Apr 28, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Apr 28, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices.
Apr 28, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Apr 28, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Apr 28, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it.
Apr 28, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.
Apr 28, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems.
Apr 28, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Oct 16, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Dec 22, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Dec 22, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Dec 22, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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 22, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not properly complete the required screening (called PASARR) that identifies whether a person entering a nursing home has a mental illness or intellectual disability and needs specialized services.
Dec 22, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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 22, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Dec 22, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Dec 22, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Dec 22, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Dec 22, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives.
Dec 22, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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 22, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
Dec 22, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not regularly inspect bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails for safety, or the rails and mattresses were not attached safely to the frames.
Sep 2, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Sep 2, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems.
Sep 2, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Sep 2, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Sep 2, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Sep 2, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Sep 2, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility transferred or discharged a resident without a valid reason, or failed to provide the required documentation and information when moving a resident out.
Sep 2, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not reassess a resident after a significant change in their condition, such as a sudden decline in health. A full new assessment is required when a resident's condition changes in a major way.
Sep 2, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Sep 2, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Sep 2, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Sep 2, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Sep 2, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it.
Sep 2, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep residents' medications free from unnecessary drugs. Residents should only take medicines they truly need, at the right dose, for a clear reason.
Sep 2, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Sep 2, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have a policy covering how food brought in by family and visitors is used and stored safely.
Sep 2, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (13 → 13).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2022170E
2023130E
202410D
2025130F

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)

MeasureThis facilityCalifornia avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)4.964.313.95top 15% in California; top 14% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.920.610.69top 13% in California; top 20% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing4.563.903.50top 13% in California; top 11% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.580.510.48top 23% in California; top 25% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)32.736.745.8top 39% in California; top 19% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)37.538.142.9top 50% in California; top 42% 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 4.19, RN 0.77, weekend 3.85. Staffing rating: 5/5.

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

Who owns this facility

For profit - Individual

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Chen, JenqIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest50%04/27/2001
Chen, Tze-YunIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest50%08/01/2001
Diebold, CoryIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE11/09/2022
Diebold, CoryIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE11/09/2022
Padama, JohnIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE08/02/2017
Woods, NormanIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2010
Woods, NormanIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2010

Questions to ask on your visit

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
White Blossom Care Center0.6 miSan Jose, CA★★☆☆☆1/5
The Redwoods Post-Acute1.1 miSan Jose, CA★★★☆☆2/5
A Grace Sub Acute & Skilled Care1.1 miSan Jose, CA★★★★☆3/5
Creekside Post-Acute1.6 miSan Jose, CA★★★★★4/5
Skyline Healthcare Center - San Jose1.9 miSan Jose, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5
O'Connor Hospital D/P SNF1.9 miSan Jose, CA★★★★★5/5
Baywood Post Acute2.1 miCampbell, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Herman Health Care Center2.1 miSan Jose, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5
Camden Postacute Care, INC2.3 miCampbell, CA★★★★☆3/5
Lincoln Glen Skilled Nursing2.4 miSan Jose, CA★★★★★3/5
The Win Post-Acute2.5 miSanta Clara, CA★★★★★4/5
Courtyard Care Center2.6 miSan Jose, CA★★★☆☆3/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in San Jose →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 056026.