Garden City Healthcare Center
1310 West Granger, Modesto, CA 95350 · Stanislaus County · 104 certified beds · avg 100 residents/day · certified since Jan 1, 1967
Part of chain: PACS GROUP (274 facilities, chain avg rating 2.9★)
2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
3
Serious findings on record
$35,153
Fines, last 3 years
3.97
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: 2/5
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)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, one-off · Oct 24, 2024 · F-0600
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 (J): Inspectors found a situation that put a resident's life or safety in immediate danger, affecting one or a few residents. The facility must fix it immediately — these citations often come with large fines.
Corrected: Nov 12, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Nov 24, 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: Nov 26, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Jul 15, 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: Jul 25, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
All citations in the current public record (60)
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 |
|---|---|---|
| May 12, 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 |
| Feb 12, 2026 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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. |
| Feb 12, 2026 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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. |
| Feb 12, 2026 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. |
| Feb 12, 2026 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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. |
| Feb 12, 2026 | 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 12, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. |
| Feb 12, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Feb 12, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. |
| Feb 12, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not make sure a transfer or discharge met the resident's needs and preferences, or did not properly prepare the resident to leave safely. |
| Feb 12, 2026 | 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. |
| Feb 12, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. |
| Dec 10, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · from a complaint |
| Dec 10, 2025 | 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 |
| Nov 24, 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 |
| Jul 15, 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 13, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. · from a complaint |
| Feb 13, 2025 | 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 |
| Jan 6, 2025 | 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 |
| Jan 6, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · from a complaint |
| Oct 24, 2024 | ▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, 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. |
| Oct 24, 2024 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. |
| Oct 24, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Oct 24, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. |
| Oct 24, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. |
| Oct 24, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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. |
| Oct 24, 2024 | 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. |
| Oct 24, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Oct 24, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Oct 24, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Oct 24, 2024 | 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. |
| Oct 24, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility allowed residents to lose the ability to do daily activities — like bathing, dressing, and eating — when there was no medical reason for the decline. Good care helps residents keep the abilities they have. |
| Oct 24, 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. |
| Oct 24, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Oct 24, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not have a working program to monitor how antibiotics are used. Tracking antibiotic use helps make sure these drugs are given only when needed and remain effective. |
| Sep 27, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint |
| Sep 27, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint |
| Mar 21, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility transferred or discharged a resident without a valid reason, or failed to provide the required documentation and information when moving a resident out. · from a complaint |
| Mar 21, 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 |
| Mar 21, 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 |
| Jan 18, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. · from a complaint |
| Sep 14, 2023 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. |
| Sep 14, 2023 | 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. |
| Sep 14, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. |
| Sep 14, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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. |
| Sep 14, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. |
| Sep 14, 2023 | 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. |
| Sep 14, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. |
| Sep 14, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not properly inform residents or their representatives about arbitration agreements — contracts that give up the right to sue in court — including their right to refuse to sign. |
| Sep 14, 2023 | 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. |
| Sep 14, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Sep 14, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Sep 14, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Sep 14, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Sep 14, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Sep 14, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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 14, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Sep 8, 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 |
| Sep 8, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | When a resident had a planned discharge, the facility did not make sure the necessary information was communicated to the resident and to the doctors or facility taking over their care. · from a complaint |
| Sep 8, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · from a complaint |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (15 → 11).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 19 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 21 | 1 | J ▲ |
| 2025 | 8 | 2 | G ▲ |
| 2026 | 12 | 0 | E |
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)
3 fines totaling $35,153.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Nov 24, 2025 | Fine | $11,190 |
| Jul 15, 2025 | Fine | $9,110 |
| Oct 24, 2024 | Fine | $14,853 |
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) | 3.97 | 4.31 | 3.95 | bottom 39% in California; top 40% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.59 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 34% in California; top 50% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.64 | 3.90 | 3.50 | bottom 42% in California; top 36% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.48 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 33% in California; top 36% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 62.8 | 36.7 | 45.8 | bottom 2% in California; bottom 12% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 35.3 | 38.1 | 42.9 | top 47% in California; top 39% 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 3.98, RN 0.59, weekend 3.64. 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: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5
Who owns this facility
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bay Bridge Capital Partners, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 100% | 08/15/2014 |
| Hudson River Opco LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 08/01/2019 |
| Apt, Frederick | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Chan, Alexander | Individual | Contracted Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2001 |
| Hancock, Mark | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Jergensen, Joshua | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Mitchell, John | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Moradkhani, Lawrence | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/15/2022 |
| Moradkhani, Lawrence | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/15/2022 |
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "Can you give me examples of how you adjust daily routines and room setups to fit each resident's preferences?"
- "How do you record and honor each resident's treatment wishes and advance directives, and how do staff know about them?"
- "How does your pharmacist review residents' medications, and how quickly can you fill new or urgent prescriptions?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "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 | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Almond Vista Healthcare | 1.1 mi | Modesto, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Modesto Post Acute Center | 1.1 mi | Modesto, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Valley Skilled Nursing Center | 1.1 mi | Modesto, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Golden Modesto Care Center | 1.7 mi | Modesto, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| English Oaks Convalescent & Rehabilitation Hospita | 1.9 mi | Modesto, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Crestwood Manor | 2.2 mi | Modesto, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| River View Post Acute | 2.5 mi | Modesto, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Vintage Faire Nursing & Rehabilitation Center | 2.7 mi | Modesto, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Ceres Postacute Care | 4.9 mi | Ceres, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Riverbank Post-Acute | 5.8 mi | Riverbank, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 055185.