California ›Stockton

Good Samaritan Rehab and Care Center

1630 N. Edison Street, Stockton, CA 95204 · San Joaquin County · 98 certified beds · avg 81 residents/day · certified since Jan 11, 1967

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.50
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: 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.

All citations in the current public record (45)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Feb 25, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · from a complaint
Jul 8, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · from a complaint
Jul 8, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint
Feb 21, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential.
Feb 21, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Feb 21, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices.
Feb 21, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
Feb 21, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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 21, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand.
Feb 21, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Feb 21, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.
Feb 21, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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 21, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide or arrange specialized rehabilitation services — such as physical, occupational, or speech therapy — for residents who needed them.
Feb 21, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Feb 21, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have a written plan describing how it runs its quality improvement program — the ongoing process of finding problems in care and fixing them.
Feb 21, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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 21, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Feb 21, 2025B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms.
Oct 10, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · from a complaint
Mar 7, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Mar 7, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it.
Mar 7, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.
Mar 7, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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 7, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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 7, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Mar 7, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
Mar 7, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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 7, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Mar 7, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Mar 7, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility used bed rails without first trying safer alternatives, or without assessing the resident's safety risk, discussing the risks and benefits with the resident or family, getting consent, and installing the rails correctly.
Mar 7, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Mar 7, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Mar 7, 2024C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe 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.
Mar 7, 2024B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms.
Mar 8, 2019E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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 8, 2019E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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 8, 2019D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential.
Mar 8, 2019D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives.
Mar 8, 2019D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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 8, 2019D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Mar 8, 2019D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Mar 8, 2019D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility used feeding tubes without a valid medical reason or the resident's agreement, or did not provide proper care to residents who have feeding tubes.
Mar 8, 2019D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Mar 8, 2019D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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 8, 2019B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (15 → 15).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2019110E
2024160E
2025170F
202610D

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)

MeasureThis facilityCalifornia avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)4.504.313.95top 29% in California; top 23% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.630.610.69top 30% in California; top 44% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.823.903.50top 45% in California; top 29% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.300.510.48bottom 35% in California; bottom 33% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)23.736.745.8top 14% in California; top 6% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)16.738.142.9top 13% in California; top 9% 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 4.28, RN 0.60, weekend 3.63. Staffing rating: 5/5.

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 / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Demesa, PraxedesIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest—11/01/1981
Stockton Edison Healthcare CorporationOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest—11/01/1981
Demesa, PraxedesIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE11/01/1981
Demesa, PraxedesIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE11/01/1981
Gallarde, MonitaIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2001
Gallarde, MonitaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE11/01/1981
Zarilla, DebbieIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE09/01/2008
Zarilla, DebbieIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE11/01/1981

Questions to ask on your visit

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

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Lincoln Square Post Acute Care0.3 miStockton, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Hampton Post Acute0.8 miStockton, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5abuse
Noble Care Center0.9 miStockton, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5abuse
Fulton Gardens Post Acute, LLC1.4 miStockton, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Brookside Care Center1.8 miStockton, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5
Oak Grove Post Acute1.9 miStockton, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5abuse
Crestwood Manor - 1041.9 miStockton, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Riverwood Health Care2.7 miStockton, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Delta Oaks Post Acute3.4 miStockton, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5abuse
Clearwater Healthcare Center4.0 miStockton, CA★★☆☆☆1/5
Creekside Center4.9 miStockton, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Crystal Creek Post-Acute5.4 miStockton, CA★★☆☆☆2/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Stockton →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 055039.