California ›Livingston

Grace Home INC.

13435 Peach Avenue, Livingston, CA 95334 · Merced County · 33 certified beds · avg 33 residents/day · certified since Apr 1, 1974 · Medicaid only — not Medicare certified

Certified for Medicaid only. It cannot bill Medicare, so a short post-hospital rehabilitation stay would not be covered the usual way here. Who pays for nursing home care →

5/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
5.40
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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

Health inspection rating: ★★★★★5/5 · CMS overall rating: 5/5

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 (18)

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
May 22, 2026E · 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 7, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not have a registered nurse on duty at least 8 hours a day, or did not have a registered nurse serving full-time as director of nursing.
Mar 7, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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, 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.
Mar 7, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Mar 7, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Mar 7, 2025E · 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, 2025E · Potential for harm, 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 7, 2025D · 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 7, 2025D · 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 1, 2024F · 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.
Mar 1, 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 1, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Mar 1, 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 1, 2024E · Potential for harm, 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 1, 2024D · 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.
Mar 1, 2024D · 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.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (10 → 1).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202470F
2025100F
202610E

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)5.404.313.95top 9% in California; top 8% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.310.610.69bottom 13% in California; bottom 11% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing4.863.903.50top 8% in California; top 8% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.250.510.48bottom 20% in California; bottom 21% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)16.236.745.8top 4% in California; top 1% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)0.038.142.9—

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 4.34, RN 0.25, weekend 3.91. 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: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: —/5

Who owns this facility

Non profit - Church related

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Ownership Data Not Available

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
Anberry Nursing and Rehabilitation Center7.4 miAtwater, CA★★★★★4/5
Main West Postacute Care10.8 miTurlock, CA★★★☆☆4/5
North Starr Postacute Care11.0 miTurlock, CA★★★★☆4/5
Covenant Village Care Center11.3 miTurlock, CA★★★★☆4/5
Turlock Nursing and Rehabilitation Center11.4 miTurlock, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Anberry Post Acute14.0 miMerced, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Franciscan Post-Acute Care Center14.2 miMerced, CA★★★★☆4/5
Golden Merced Care Center14.4 miMerced, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Merced Nursing & Rehabilitation Ctr14.4 miMerced, CA★★★★☆3/5
La Sierra Care Center14.5 miMerced, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Merced Behavioral Center15.4 miMerced, CA★★★★★5/5
San Luis Care Center16.3 miNewman, CA★★★☆☆2/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Livingston →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 05A110.