CaliforniaFresno

Foundation Skilled Nursing

925 North Cornelia, Fresno, CA 93706 · Fresno County · 59 certified beds · avg 56 residents/day · certified since Feb 10, 1971

Part of chain: JERICHO CARE GROUP (7 facilities, chain avg rating 2.3★)

1/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
4
Serious findings on record
$96,763
Fines, last 3 years
3.84
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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

Health inspection rating: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · CMS overall rating: 1/5

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.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Dec 9, 2025 · F-0689

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: Jan 16, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Aug 12, 2025 · 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: Sep 15, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Feb 23, 2024 · F-0600 · triggered by a complaint

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.

Why it matters: Abuse and neglect cause direct physical and emotional harm and are among the most serious failures a nursing home can have.

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: Mar 14, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Jul 15, 2022 · F-0758

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.

Why it matters: Unneeded psychiatric medications can leave residents overly sedated and raise the risk of falls and other serious harm.

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: Sep 7, 2022 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (52)

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
Jun 9, 2026D · 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. · from a complaint
May 15, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint
Mar 2, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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. · from a complaint
Dec 9, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Dec 9, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Dec 9, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service.
Dec 9, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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.
Dec 9, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Dec 9, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.
Dec 9, 2025E · 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.
Dec 9, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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 9, 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.
Dec 9, 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.
Dec 9, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
Dec 9, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
Dec 9, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility gave residents unnecessary mind-altering (psychotropic) medications, or used drugs in a way that restrained residents by dulling their ability to think, move, or function.
Dec 9, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide required paperwork or notices about a resident's needs, their right to appeal a transfer or discharge, or the facility's bed-hold policy (how long a bed is saved during a hospital stay).
Dec 9, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives.
Dec 9, 2025D · 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 9, 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.
Dec 9, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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 9, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not help a resident get vision and hearing services — such as eye exams, glasses, hearing tests, or hearing aids.
Dec 9, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Dec 9, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide or arrange dental services for its residents. Nursing homes are responsible for making sure residents can get dental care.
Dec 9, 2025C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe facility had resident rooms holding more people than allowed — no more than 4 residents per room, and no more than 2 per room in buildings constructed after November 28, 2016.
Aug 12, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Jun 10, 2025D · 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. · from a complaint
Dec 5, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Nov 20, 2024D · 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. · from a complaint
Oct 1, 2024D · 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. · from a complaint
Aug 23, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint
Aug 23, 2024E · 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. · from a complaint
Aug 23, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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
Aug 23, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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. · from a complaint
Aug 23, 2024E · 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. · from a complaint
Aug 23, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests. · from a complaint
Aug 23, 2024B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe facility had resident rooms holding more people than allowed — no more than 4 residents per room, and no more than 2 per room in buildings constructed after November 28, 2016. · from a complaint
Jun 3, 2024D · 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. · from a complaint
Feb 23, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe 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
Feb 23, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not train its staff on dementia care and on recognizing and reporting abuse, neglect, and exploitation. · from a complaint
Feb 23, 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
Jul 15, 2022▲ G · Actual 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.
Jul 15, 2022F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service.
Jul 15, 2022F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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 15, 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.
Jul 15, 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.
Jul 15, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Jul 15, 2022D · 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.
Jul 15, 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.
Jul 15, 2022D · 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.
Jul 15, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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 15, 2022B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe facility had resident rooms holding more people than allowed — no more than 4 residents per room, and no more than 2 per room in buildings constructed after November 28, 2016.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (7 → 22).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2022111G ▲
2024141G ▲
2025242G ▲
202630E

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)

2 fines totaling $96,763, plus 2 Medicare payment denial periods.

DateTypeAmount / length
Dec 9, 2025Fine$51,880
Dec 9, 2025Payment Denial14 days from Jan 7, 2026
Aug 12, 2025Payment Denial2 days from Sep 13, 2025
Feb 23, 2024Fine$44,883

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)3.844.313.95bottom 30% in California; top 46% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.250.610.69bottom 5% in California; bottom 5% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.413.903.50bottom 23% in California; top 47% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.150.510.48bottom 2% in California; bottom 5% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)0.036.745.8
RN turnover (%)0.038.142.9

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 3.74, RN 0.25, weekend 3.32. Staffing rating: 1/5.

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: 2/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · short-stay residents: 2/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Astoria Healthcare TrustOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest100%02/04/2021
Bak, AbrahamIndividualDirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE04/15/2025
Bak, AbrahamIndividualIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE11/28/2016
Bayshire Central Valley LLCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%08/01/2025
Bayshire Central Valley LLCOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE08/01/2025
Bayshire Central Valley LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE10/10/2025
Bayshire LLCOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE08/01/2025
Bayshire LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE10/10/2025
Big Fresco Master Subtenant, LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE08/07/2025
Carter, BenjaminIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE08/01/2025
Cox, RobertIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE10/15/2024
Cox, RobertIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE10/15/2024
Galit, EmmanuelIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE11/01/2023
Grossman, StephenIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE03/09/2022
Grossman, StephenIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE03/09/2022
Kirby, ScottIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE08/01/2025
Lang, JeffIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE08/19/2025
Lang, JeffIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE08/19/2025
Parrott, JasonIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/30/2023
Parrott, JasonIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/30/2023

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
Veterans Home of California - Fresno3.9 miFresno, CA★★★★★4/5
Fresno Postacute Care4.6 miFresno, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Healthcare Centre of Fresno5.0 miFresno, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Community Subacute and Transitional Care Center5.9 miFresno, CA★★★★★5/5
Oakwood Gardens Care Center6.4 miFresno, CA★★★★★4/5
Covenant Post Acute6.4 miFresno, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Keystone Post-Acute6.5 miFresno, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
The Terraces at San Joaquin Gardens Village7.3 miFresno, CA★★★★★3/5
Sierra Vista Healthcare7.4 miFresno, CA★★★☆☆3/5
North Point Healthcare & Wellness Centre LP7.5 miFresno, CA★★★★★5/5
Orchard Post Acute8.3 miFresno, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Stonehaven Senior Living8.4 miFresno, CA—/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Fresno →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 056281.