Franciscan Post-Acute Care Center

Name: Franciscan Post-Acute Care Center
Address: 3169 M STREET, Merced, CA, 95348, US
Telephone: 2097226231

3169 M Street, Merced, CA 95348 · Merced County · 71 certified beds · avg 64 residents/day · certified since Jul 31, 1969

Part of chain: AVALON HEALTH CARE (16 facilities, chain avg rating 3.4★)

4/5

Health inspection rating (on-site)

Serious findings on record

$9,110

Fines, last 3 years

4.43

Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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

Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · 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.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · 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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Jul 4, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · 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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Feb 28, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · 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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: May 16, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (30)

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
Apr 20, 2026	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. · from a complaint
Apr 20, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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
Apr 20, 2026	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. · from a complaint
Jun 12, 2025	▲ G · Actual harm, one-off	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
Jun 12, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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
Apr 10, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Feb 5, 2025	▲ 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
Feb 5, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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
Feb 5, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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
Jan 13, 2025	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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
Dec 11, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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
Sep 17, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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
Aug 29, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. · from a complaint
Aug 16, 2024	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. · from a complaint
Apr 17, 2024	▲ 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 30, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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
Oct 2, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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
Oct 2, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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
Dec 1, 2022	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives.
Dec 1, 2022	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Dec 1, 2022	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 1, 2022	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.
Feb 15, 2019	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
Feb 15, 2019	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.
Feb 15, 2019	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Feb 15, 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.
Feb 15, 2019	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.
Feb 15, 2019	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Feb 15, 2019	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Feb 15, 2019	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The 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 decreased between the last two inspection cycles (4 → 1).

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.

Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)

1 fine totaling $9,110.

Date	Type	Amount / length
Jan 13, 2025	Fine	$9,110

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)	4.43	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, 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. Staffing rating: 3/5.

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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5

Who owns this facility

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

Questions to ask on your visit

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

"Who is on the team that builds each resident's care plan, and how quickly is it in place after admission?"
"What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
"Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
"Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
"How do you track each resident's food allergies and preferences, and what happens if they don't like what's served?"
"How do you identify and arrange specialized services for residents with mental health conditions or disabilities?"
"Who completes resident assessments here, and how do you check them for accuracy?"
"Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
"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
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 →

All facilities in Merced →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 055979.

The Care File

Visit checklist — Franciscan Post-Acute Care Center

3169 M Street, Merced, CA 95348 · 2097226231

Health inspection rating 4/5 · CMS overall 4/5· Fines (3y): $9,110

Most serious findings on record:

▲ Jun 12, 2025 (F-0657, Actual harm, one-off): 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.
▲ Feb 5, 2025 (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.
▲ Apr 17, 2024 (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:

☐ "Who is on the team that builds each resident's care plan, and how quickly is it in place after admission?"
☐ "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
☐ "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
☐ "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
☐ "How do you track each resident's food allergies and preferences, and what happens if they don't like what's served?"
☐ "How do you identify and arrange specialized services for residents with mental health conditions or disabilities?"
☐ "Who completes resident assessments here, and how do you check them for accuracy?"
☐ "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
☐ "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 055979 · Verify at medicare.gov/care-compare · Printed from The Care File (thecarefile.com)