3169 M Street, Merced, CA 95348 (opens Google Maps) · Merced County · (209) 722-6231· 71 certified beds · avg 64 residents/day · certified since Jul 31, 1969 · 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: AVALON HEALTH CARE (16 facilities, chain avg rating 3.4★)
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 · Jun 12, 2025 · F-0657 · triggered by a complaint
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.
Why it matters: Delays or gaps in care planning mean staff may work without a clear, current roadmap for the resident's daily care and treatment.
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: Jul 4, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Feb 5, 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): 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 28, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Apr 17, 2024 · 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): 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: May 16, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 30 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
The 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
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 F-0689
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Apr 20, 2026 | 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 |
| Apr 20, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 |
| Apr 20, 2026 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Jun 12, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual 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 |
| Jun 12, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives. · from a complaint · F-0806 |
| Apr 10, 2025 | 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. · F-0644 |
| Feb 5, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | 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 · F-0689 |
| Feb 5, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · from a complaint · F-0641 |
| Feb 5, 2025 | 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 13, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Dec 11, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide or arrange specialized rehabilitation services — such as physical, occupational, or speech therapy — for residents who needed them. · from a complaint · F-0825 |
| Sep 17, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 29, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. · from a complaint · F-0604 |
| Aug 16, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Apr 17, 2024 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | 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 · F-0689 |
| Jan 30, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Oct 2, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 |
| Oct 2, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · from a complaint · F-0726 |
| Dec 1, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641 |
| Dec 1, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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. · F-0695 |
| Dec 1, 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 |
| Dec 1, 2022 | 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 |
| Feb 15, 2019 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Feb 15, 2019 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Feb 15, 2019 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| Feb 15, 2019 | 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 |
| Feb 15, 2019 | 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 |
| Feb 15, 2019 | 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 |
| Feb 15, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842 |
| Feb 15, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · F-0921 |
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (4 → 1).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 8 | 0 | E |
| 2022 | 4 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 2 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 6 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2025 | 7 | 2 | G ▲ |
| 2026 | 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 →
1 fine totaling $9,110.
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 13, 2025 | Fine | $9,110 |
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) | 4.43 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 32% in California; top 25% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.38 | 0.61 | 0.69 | bottom 28% in California; bottom 19% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.09 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 28% in California; top 20% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.25 | 0.51 | 0.48 | bottom 22% in California; bottom 22% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 31.3 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 34% in California; top 17% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 71.4 | 38.1 | 42.9 | bottom 7% in California; bottom 11% 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 4.30, RN 0.37, weekend 3.96.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.30 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 Franciscan Post-Acute 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 →
For profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Avalon Care LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 100% | 12/01/2003 |
| Avalon of California LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 12/01/2003 |
| Avalon Health Care INC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2003 |
| Avalon Health Care INC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/20/2025 |
| Avalon Health Care Management INC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2003 |
| Avalon Health Care Management INC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/04/2025 |
| Borisevich, Maria | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/08/2024 |
| Borisevich, Maria | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/08/2024 |
| Borisevich, Maria | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/08/2024 |
| Dangerfield, David | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/05/2007 |
| Dangerfield, David | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/05/2007 |
| Hash, Alan | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/15/2017 |
| Hash, Alan | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/15/2017 |
| Hash, Alan | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/15/2017 |
| Henrie, Brian | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/19/2021 |
| Henrie, Brian | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/19/2021 |
| Kirton, Byron | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/27/2024 |
| Kirton, Byron | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/27/2024 |
| Kirton, Hyrum | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/27/2024 |
| Kirton, Hyrum | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/27/2024 |
Showing 20 of 34 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 14 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
CMS lists this facility under the chain Avalon Health Care — 16 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 15 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Golden Merced Care Center | 0.5 mi | Merced, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Merced Nursing & Rehabilitation Ctr | 0.7 mi | Merced, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| La Sierra Care Center | 0.8 mi | Merced, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Merced Behavioral Center | 2.1 mi | Merced, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Anberry Post Acute | 3.7 mi | Merced, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Anberry Nursing and Rehabilitation Center | 6.8 mi | Atwater, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Grace Home INC. | 14.2 mi | Livingston, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Palms Care Center | 18.0 mi | Chowchilla, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Chowchilla Memorial Healthcare District | 18.0 mi | Chowchilla, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
CMS records place this facility in Merced, CA — 10 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 055979.
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details