California ›Escondido

Escondido Post Acute

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

421 E Mission Ave, Escondido, CA 92025 (opens Google Maps) · San Diego County · (760) 747-0430· 180 certified beds · avg 173 residents/day · certified since Dec 31, 1971 · 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★)

4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected May 8, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.87
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: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 5/5 · 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.

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 42 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

  1. 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

  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. 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. · from a complaint F-0550

View all 42 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 1, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Dec 30, 2025D · 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
Jun 11, 2025D · 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. · from a complaint · F-0550
Jun 11, 2025D · 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
May 12, 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. · from a complaint · F-0761
May 8, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0554
May 8, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
May 8, 2025D · 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. · F-0609
May 8, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0644
May 8, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
May 8, 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
May 8, 2025C · Potential for minimal harm, widespreadThe 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
Dec 24, 2024D · 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. · from a complaint · F-0688
Dec 20, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not give the resident or their representative written notice of how long it would hold the resident's bed during a hospital stay or approved leave. · from a complaint · F-0625
Dec 20, 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. · from a complaint · F-0550
Dec 20, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint · F-0584
Oct 8, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Oct 8, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Jul 18, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Jul 18, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · from a complaint · F-0658
Aug 9, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · from a complaint · F-0921
Feb 3, 2022E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Feb 3, 2022E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755
Feb 3, 2022E · 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
Feb 3, 2022D · 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
Feb 3, 2022D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0623
Feb 3, 2022D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0756
Feb 3, 2022D · 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
Feb 3, 2022D · 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
Feb 3, 2022D · 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
Feb 3, 2022D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Aug 28, 2019D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups. · F-0558
Aug 28, 2019D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Aug 28, 2019D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · F-0583
Aug 28, 2019D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0657
Aug 28, 2019D · 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
Aug 28, 2019D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689
Aug 28, 2019D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · F-0698
Aug 28, 2019D · 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
Aug 28, 2019D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Aug 28, 2019D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not arrange hospice services for a resident who needed them, or help the resident move to a facility that could arrange hospice. Hospice provides comfort-focused care for people nearing the end of life. · F-0849
Aug 28, 2019D · 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 (10 → 7).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2019
All citations: 11
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2022
All citations: 10
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 8
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 11
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0

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

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2019110D
2022100E
202310E
202480E
2025110D
202610D

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: 3.87
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.22
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.70
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)3.874.313.95bottom 32% in California; top 45% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.220.610.69bottom 2% in California; bottom 3% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.703.903.50bottom 47% in California; top 33% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.170.510.48bottom 6% in California; bottom 8% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)37.936.745.8bottom 44% in California; top 31% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)12.538.142.9top 8% in California; top 6% 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 3.78, RN 0.21, weekend 3.62.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.78 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: 4/5

Costs & payment

Price evidence · separate from quality

No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Escondido 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 - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Apt, FrederickIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Aussef, KavyonIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE02/01/2025
Aussef, KavyonIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/28/2025
Farooqui, MohammedIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/01/2023
Jergensen, JoshuaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Lee, EmmetIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE11/01/2022
Lee, EmmetIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/28/2025
Lorenzana, AngelicaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE08/01/2022
Mitchell, JohnIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Providence Administrative Consulting Services INCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE08/01/2022
Truist BankOrganization5% or Greater Security InterestNOT APPLICABLE12/07/2023

All 11 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.

  • "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
  • "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
  • "Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
  • "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
  • "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
  • "If my family member is able to manage their own medications, would you allow it, and how is that decided?"
  • "Before any service that isn't covered by Medicare or Medicaid, how will you notify us and get our agreement?"
  • "How do you identify and arrange specialized services for residents with mental health conditions or disabilities?"

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 38% 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 28 within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Palomar Vista Healthcare Center0.7 miEscondido, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Palomar Heights Post Acute1.2 miEscondido, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Valley Vista Post Acute1.4 miEscondido, CA★★★★☆3/5
Redwood Terrace Health Center1.7 miEscondido, CA★★★★★5/5
Meadowbrook Village Christian Retirement Community1.8 miEscondido, CA★★★★★4/5
Ocean View Post Acute2.4 miEscondido, CA★★★★☆3/5
Casa de Las Campanas5.7 miSan Diego, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Village Square Healthcare Center6.9 miSan Marcos, CA★★★★☆4/5
Villa Rancho Bernardo Care Center8.8 miSan Diego, CA★★★★★4/5
The Villas at Poway9.3 miPoway, CA★★★★★3/5
Poway Healthcare Center9.4 miPoway, CA★★★★☆4/5
Boulder Creek Post Acute9.6 miPoway, CA★★★★☆3/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

Other facilities in the same county

CMS records place this facility in San Diego, CA — 83 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 Escondido →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 056040.

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