CaliforniaGrass Valley

Grass Valley Healthcare Center

355 Joerschke Dr, Grass Valley, CA 95945 · Nevada County · 86 certified beds · avg 83 residents/day · certified since Jan 2, 1968

Part of chain: CYPRESS HEALTHCARE GROUP (13 facilities, chain avg rating 3.8★)

3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
1
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.69
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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 · 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: Dec 17, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (23)

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
Dec 30, 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. · from a complaint
Nov 24, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Sep 25, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle.
Sep 25, 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. · from a complaint
Sep 25, 2025E · 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.
Sep 25, 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.
Sep 25, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Sep 25, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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 25, 2025D · 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.
Sep 25, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it.
Sep 25, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide routine dental care and 24-hour emergency dental care for residents. · from a complaint
Sep 25, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives.
Jul 30, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · from a complaint
Jul 30, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not allow a resident's chosen representative — often a family member or someone with power of attorney — to exercise the resident's rights on their behalf. When a resident can't speak for themselves, their representative steps into that role. · from a complaint
Jul 30, 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. · from a complaint
Jul 30, 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. · from a complaint
Jun 9, 2023E · 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.
Jun 9, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not develop, carry out, or maintain an effective training program for all new and existing staff members.
Jun 9, 2023D · 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.
Jun 9, 2023D · 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.
Jun 9, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure special medical diets — like low-sodium or diabetic diets — were properly ordered by the resident's doctor or managed by a qualified dietitian as state law allows.
Oct 11, 2019D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection.
Oct 11, 2019D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (5 → 10).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
201920D
202350E
2025161G ▲

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)4.694.313.95top 21% in California; top 18% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.450.610.69bottom 44% in California; bottom 29% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing4.183.903.50top 24% in California; top 18% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.280.510.48bottom 29% in California; bottom 28% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)40.936.745.8bottom 36% in California; top 39% 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 4.37, RN 0.42, weekend 3.89. 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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Gill, KuldipIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE12/30/2024
Gill, KuldipIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE12/30/2024
Jackson, MatthewIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE12/30/2024
Jackson, MatthewIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/24/2026
Jackson, RobertIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE12/30/2024
Jackson, RobertIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE12/30/2024
Jackson, RobertIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE12/30/2024
Sanofsky, JackIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE12/30/2024
Sanofsky, JackIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/24/2026
Webster, MatthewIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE12/30/2024
Webster, MatthewIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE12/30/2024

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
Golden Empire0.0 miGrass Valley, CA★★★★☆3/5
Wolf Creek Care Center0.5 miGrass Valley, CA★★★★☆3/5
Crystal Ridge Care Center0.6 miGrass Valley, CA★★★★☆3/5
Westview Healthcare Center19.4 miAuburn, CA★★☆☆☆1/5abuse

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Grass Valley →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 055640.