Hanford Post Acute
1007 West Lacey Blvd, Hanford, CA 93230 · Kings County · 124 certified beds · avg 86 residents/day · certified since Jan 1, 1973
Part of chain: PACS GROUP (274 facilities, chain avg rating 2.9★)
2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
1
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.44
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.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Apr 4, 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: Apr 29, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
All citations in the current public record (41)
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 13, 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. · from a complaint |
| May 13, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint |
| Apr 4, 2025 | ▲ 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 4, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not let a resident return after a hospital stay or approved leave that lasted longer than the facility's bed-hold policy allowed. Residents generally have the right to come back to the next available bed. · from a complaint |
| Apr 4, 2025 | 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 4, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility was not managed in a way that uses its money, staff, and resources effectively and efficiently to care for residents. · from a complaint |
| Apr 4, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. · from a complaint |
| Jan 24, 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. |
| Jan 24, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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. |
| Jan 24, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide proper foot care for residents. Foot care includes routine care like nail trimming and attention to foot problems, which matter greatly for older adults. |
| Jan 24, 2025 | 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. |
| Jan 24, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems. |
| Jan 24, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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. |
| Jan 24, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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. |
| Jan 24, 2025 | 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. |
| Jan 24, 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. |
| Jan 24, 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. |
| Jan 24, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. |
| Jan 24, 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. |
| Jan 24, 2025 | 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. |
| Jan 24, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not give the resident or their representative written notice of how long it would hold the resident's bed during a hospital stay or approved leave. |
| Jan 24, 2025 | 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. |
| Jan 24, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not have a working call system — the button or cord residents use to summon help — in each resident's bathroom and bathing area. |
| Jan 24, 2025 | B · Minimal risk, repeated | The facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms. |
| Jul 10, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint |
| Dec 5, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Dec 5, 2023 | 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. |
| Dec 5, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Dec 5, 2023 | C · Minimal risk, facility-wide | The facility did not post its nurse staffing information every day. Nursing homes must publicly display how many nurses and aides are on duty each day. |
| Dec 5, 2023 | B · Minimal risk, repeated | The 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 25, 2023 | 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 |
| Mar 18, 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. |
| Mar 18, 2019 | 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. |
| Mar 18, 2019 | 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 18, 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. |
| Mar 18, 2019 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Mar 18, 2019 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not give residents proper notice about what Medicare or Medicaid covers, or about charges the resident might owe for services that aren't covered. |
| Mar 18, 2019 | 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. |
| Mar 18, 2019 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. |
| Mar 18, 2019 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. |
| Mar 18, 2019 | B · Minimal risk, repeated | The 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 increased between the last two inspection cycles (5 → 17).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 10 | 0 | F |
| 2023 | 6 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 1 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 24 | 1 | G ▲ |
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) | 4.44 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 32% in California; top 25% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.17 | 0.61 | 0.69 | bottom 1% in California; bottom 1% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.18 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 24% in California; top 18% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.14 | 0.51 | 0.48 | bottom 2% in California; bottom 4% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 55.7 | 36.7 | 45.8 | bottom 6% in California; bottom 24% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 80.0 | 38.1 | 42.9 | bottom 4% in California; bottom 6% 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 3.93, RN 0.15, weekend 3.70. Staffing rating: 2/5.
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: 5/5
Who owns this facility
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Providence Group North LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 07/01/2016 |
| Apt, Frederick | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Bennett, Parker | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2023 |
| Bennett, Parker | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2023 |
| Grossman, Stephen | Individual | Contracted Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/02/2015 |
| Hancock, Mark | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Jergensen, Joshua | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Mitchell, John | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "If my family member is hospitalized, what is your bed-hold policy and what guarantees their right to return?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "What were the findings behind this administration citation, and what has leadership changed since?"
- "How does your quality improvement program work, and can you share a recent example of a problem you found and fixed?"
- "Who is on the team that builds each resident's care plan, and how quickly is it in place after admission?"
- "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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kings Healthcare & Wellness Center LP | 0.9 mi | Hanford, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Brighton Post Acute | 1.5 mi | Hanford, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Kingsburg Center | 14.7 mi | Kingsburg, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Bethel Lutheran Home | 16.8 mi | Selma, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Rolling Hills Care Center | 17.1 mi | Selma, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Linwood Meadows Care Center | 17.8 mi | Visalia, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Westgate Gardens Care Center | 17.8 mi | Visalia, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Sequoia Vista | 18.4 mi | Visalia, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Tulare Healthcare & Wellness Center, LP | 19.3 mi | Tulare, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Orchards at Tulare | 19.3 mi | Tulare, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 056288.