George L Mee Memorial Hospital D/P SNF
300 Canal Street, King City, CA 93930 · Monterey County · 48 certified beds · avg 40 residents/day · certified since Jan 3, 1974
2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
6.58
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.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jan 30, 2026 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. |
| Jan 30, 2026 | 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. |
| Jan 30, 2026 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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. |
| Jan 30, 2026 | 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. |
| Jan 30, 2026 | 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. |
| Jan 30, 2026 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. |
| Jan 30, 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. |
| Jan 30, 2026 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not have a policy covering how food brought in by family and visitors is used and stored safely. |
| Jan 30, 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. |
| Jan 30, 2026 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations. |
| Jan 30, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. |
| Jan 30, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. |
| Jan 30, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. |
| Jun 28, 2024 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service. |
| Jun 28, 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. |
| Jun 28, 2024 | 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. |
| Jun 28, 2024 | 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. |
| Jun 28, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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. |
| Jun 28, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. |
| Jun 28, 2024 | 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. |
| Jun 28, 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. |
| Jun 28, 2024 | 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. |
| Jun 28, 2024 | 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. |
| Jun 20, 2022 | 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. |
| Jun 20, 2022 | 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. |
| Jun 20, 2022 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Jun 20, 2022 | 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. |
| Jun 20, 2022 | 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. |
| Jun 20, 2022 | 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. |
| Jun 20, 2022 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not report COVID-19 data to residents and their families as required. Facilities must keep residents and families informed about COVID-19 cases. |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (10 → 13).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 7 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 10 | 0 | F |
| 2026 | 13 | 0 | F |
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)
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
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) | 6.58 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 3% in California; top 2% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 1.42 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 4% in California; top 6% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 5.55 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 4% in California; top 3% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.75 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 13% in California; top 13% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 0.0 | 36.7 | 45.8 | — |
| RN turnover (%) | 0.0 | 38.1 | 42.9 | — |
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 5.37, RN 1.16, weekend 4.53. Staffing rating: 4/5.
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: 3/5 · short-stay residents: —/5
Who owns this facility
Non profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Borzini, Roger | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2008 |
| Borzini, Roger | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2008 |
| Emery-Shea, Emily | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/02/2025 |
| Emery-Shea, Emily | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/02/2025 |
| Ewart, James | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2016 |
| Ewart, James | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2016 |
| Howard, Michael | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/01/2017 |
| Howard, Michael | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/01/2017 |
| Osmani, Faraaz | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/30/2017 |
| Osmani, Faraaz | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/30/2017 |
| Osmani, Faraaz | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/11/2026 |
| Salamacha, Rena | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/15/2019 |
| Salamacha, Rena | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/15/2019 |
| Salamacha, Rena | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/23/2021 |
| Salamacha, Rena | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/13/2025 |
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "Could I join residents for a meal to see the food quality and temperature for myself?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "What percentage of your residents are on antipsychotic or sedating medications, and how do you work to reduce that?"
- "Who completes resident assessments here, and how do you check them for accuracy?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "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?"
- "What are your rules for bringing in my family member's favorite foods, and how are they stored?"
- "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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eden Valley Care Center | 18.9 mi | Soledad, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 |
Compare this facility with the 1 closest →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 056443.