Golden Merced Care Center
3170 M Street, Merced, CA 95340 · Merced County · 121 certified beds · avg 108 residents/day · certified since Oct 21, 1968
Part of chain: GOLDEN SNF OPERATIONS (7 facilities, chain avg rating 2.9★)
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 3/5
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 · Sep 1, 2023 · 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: Oct 15, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Apr 12, 2019 · 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: Jul 3, 2019 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
All citations in the current public record (33)
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 19, 2026 | 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 |
| May 1, 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 9, 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 |
| Nov 19, 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 |
| Jul 16, 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 |
| Jul 11, 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 |
| Jun 11, 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 |
| Apr 2, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint |
| Mar 21, 2025 | 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. |
| Mar 21, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable. |
| Mar 21, 2025 | 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. |
| Mar 21, 2025 | 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. |
| Mar 21, 2025 | 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. |
| Mar 21, 2025 | 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. |
| Mar 21, 2025 | 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. |
| Mar 21, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint |
| Mar 21, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not reassess a resident after a significant change in their condition, such as a sudden decline in health. A full new assessment is required when a resident's condition changes in a major way. |
| Mar 21, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not safely and appropriately administer IV fluids (fluids given through a vein) for residents who needed them. |
| Feb 10, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · from a complaint |
| Nov 22, 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. · from a complaint |
| Nov 7, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint |
| May 2, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide each resident with a nourishing, tasty, well-balanced diet that meets their daily nutritional and special dietary needs. |
| May 2, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not arrange hospice services for a resident who needed them, or help the resident move to a facility that could arrange hospice. Hospice provides comfort-focused care for people nearing the end of life. |
| Oct 17, 2023 | 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. · from a complaint |
| Oct 4, 2023 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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 1, 2023 | ▲ 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 |
| Apr 12, 2019 | ▲ 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. |
| Apr 12, 2019 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not conduct and document a facility-wide assessment of what staff, supplies, and resources it needs to care for its residents properly — during everyday operations, nights, weekends, and emergencies. |
| Apr 12, 2019 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. |
| Apr 12, 2019 | 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. |
| Apr 12, 2019 | 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. |
| Apr 12, 2019 | 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. |
| Apr 12, 2019 | 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. |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (2 → 10).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 7 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2023 | 3 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2024 | 4 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 16 | 0 | E |
| 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 $83,538.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 1, 2023 | Fine | $83,538 |
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) | 4.29 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 39% in California; top 29% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.40 | 0.61 | 0.69 | bottom 32% in California; bottom 22% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.93 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 37% in California; top 25% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.23 | 0.51 | 0.48 | bottom 16% in California; bottom 17% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 58.3 | 36.7 | 45.8 | bottom 4% in California; bottom 19% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 63.6 | 38.1 | 42.9 | bottom 12% in California; bottom 17% 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 4.08, RN 0.38, weekend 3.74. 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: 3/5 · short-stay residents: 2/5
Who owns this facility
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cafive Operations Holdings LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 03/01/2023 |
| CH Cafive Holdings LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 61% | 03/01/2023 |
| Barias, Karen | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/03/2025 |
| Barias, Karen | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/03/2025 |
| Booth, Jeanette | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2023 |
| Booth, Jeanette | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2023 |
| Cafive Opco Manager LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2023 |
| Cafive Opco Manager LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/08/2025 |
| Cafive SNF Consulting LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2023 |
| Cafive SNF Consulting LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/08/2025 |
| CH Cafive Holdings LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2023 |
| Couve Healthcare Consulting LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/31/2023 |
| Couve Healthcare Consulting LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/08/2025 |
| Earl, Steven | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/03/2025 |
| Earl, Steven | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/03/2025 |
| Herzka, Yisroel | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2023 |
| Meador, Daniel | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2023 |
| Meador, Daniel | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2023 |
| Merced SNF Operations LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2023 |
| Merced SNF Operations LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/08/2025 |
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "Who completes resident assessments here, and how do you check them for accuracy?"
- "Can you give me examples of how you adjust daily routines and room setups to fit each resident's preferences?"
- "What does the care plan for a brand-new resident cover in the first 48 hours, and who writes it?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Merced Nursing & Rehabilitation Ctr | 0.2 mi | Merced, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| La Sierra Care Center | 0.3 mi | Merced, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Franciscan Post-Acute Care Center | 0.5 mi | Merced, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Merced Behavioral Center | 1.6 mi | Merced, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Anberry Post Acute | 3.2 mi | Merced, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Anberry Nursing and Rehabilitation Center | 7.0 mi | Atwater, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Grace Home INC. | 14.4 mi | Livingston, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Palms Care Center | 17.6 mi | Chowchilla, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Chowchilla Memorial Healthcare District | 17.6 mi | Chowchilla, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 055988.