California ›Manteca

Harvest Crossing Post Acute

469 East North Street, Manteca, CA 95336 · San Joaquin County · 99 certified beds · avg 91 residents/day · certified since Apr 10, 1968

Abuse citation flag (CMS)

Part of chain: KALESTA HEALTHCARE GROUP (19 facilities, chain avg rating 2.4★)

The abuse flag means inspectors cited this facility for abuse that caused harm to a resident within the past year, or potential for harm in each of the last two years. Source: CMS.

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
1
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.20
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: 2/5

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 · Dec 29, 2025 · F-0600 · triggered by a complaint

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.

Why it matters: Abuse and neglect cause direct physical and emotional harm and are among the most serious failures a nursing home can have.

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 30, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (50)

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
Apr 7, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide required paperwork or notices about a resident's needs, their right to appeal a transfer or discharge, or the facility's bed-hold policy (how long a bed is saved during a hospital stay). · from a complaint
Feb 26, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure a transfer or discharge met the resident's needs and preferences, or did not properly prepare the resident to leave safely. · from a complaint
Dec 29, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe 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
Jul 3, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint
Apr 2, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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. · from a complaint
Apr 2, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · from a complaint
Nov 21, 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.
Nov 21, 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.
Nov 21, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service.
Nov 21, 2024E · 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.
Nov 21, 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.
Nov 21, 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.
Nov 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Nov 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential.
Nov 21, 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.
Nov 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not properly complete the required screening (called PASARR) that identifies whether a person entering a nursing home has a mental illness or intellectual disability and needs specialized services.
Nov 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration.
Nov 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide routine dental care and 24-hour emergency dental care for residents.
Nov 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
Nov 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Nov 21, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide its staff with required training on behavioral health — caring for residents with conditions like dementia, depression, or other mental health needs.
Nov 21, 2024D · 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. · from a complaint
Apr 16, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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. · from a complaint
Nov 9, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Nov 9, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not coordinate resident assessments with the state's pre-admission screening program for mental illness and intellectual disabilities, or failed to refer residents for the special services they need.
Nov 9, 2023D · 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.
Nov 9, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not help a resident get vision and hearing services — such as eye exams, glasses, hearing tests, or hearing aids.
Nov 9, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving.
Nov 9, 2023D · 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.
Nov 9, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not safely and appropriately administer IV fluids (fluids given through a vein) for residents who needed them.
Nov 9, 2023D · 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.
Nov 9, 2023D · 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.
Nov 9, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Nov 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.
Nov 9, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Nov 9, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Nov 9, 2023D · 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.
Nov 9, 2023D · 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.
Nov 9, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Nov 9, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide its staff with required training on behavioral health — caring for residents with conditions like dementia, depression, or other mental health needs.
Sep 22, 2023D · 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. · from a complaint
Nov 18, 2021F · 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.
Nov 18, 2021E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Nov 18, 2021E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Nov 18, 2021E · 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.
Nov 18, 2021E · 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.
Nov 18, 2021D · 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.
Nov 18, 2021D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Nov 18, 2021D · 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.
Nov 18, 2021D · 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.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (17 → 15).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202190F
2023180E
2024170E
202541G ▲
202620D

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)4.204.313.95top 45% in California; top 32% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.420.610.69bottom 37% in California; bottom 25% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.783.903.50top 48% in California; top 30% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.410.510.48top 44% in California; top 46% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)39.736.745.8bottom 39% in California; top 35% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)42.938.142.9bottom 39% in California; bottom 49% 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 4.41, RN 0.44, weekend 3.97. 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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Clawson, ScottIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest44%11/01/2021
Clawson, ScottIndividualIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE03/01/2021
Kalesta Healthcare Group, LLCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%11/01/2021
Williams, RyanIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest44%11/01/2021
Alvarenga, OscarIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE11/01/2021
Bush, StevenIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE03/01/2022
Bush, StevenIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE03/01/2022
Chen, Kai ShinIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE11/01/2021
Chen, Kai ShinIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE11/01/2021
Clawson, ScottIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE11/01/2021
Fields, DomoniqueIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE11/01/2021
Fields, DomoniqueIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE11/01/2021
Flake, EthanIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE10/07/2024
Flake, EthanIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE10/07/2024
Hinkle, CortneyIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/09/2024
Hinkle, CortneyIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/09/2024
Jones, StevenIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2024
Jones, StevenIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2024
Kalesta Healthcare Group, LLCOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE11/01/2021
Knight, KalilahIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE08/29/2022

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
Guardian Care and Rehabilitation Center1.3 miManteca, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Bethany Home Society San Joaquin County6.1 miRipon, CA★★★★☆4/5
Vintage Faire Nursing & Rehabilitation Center11.6 miModesto, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Lincoln Square Post Acute Care12.1 miStockton, CA★★★☆☆2/5
English Oaks Convalescent & Rehabilitation Hospita12.4 miModesto, CA★★★☆☆3/5
North Park Post-Acute12.4 miTracy, CA★★★★☆3/5
Good Samaritan Rehab and Care Center12.4 miStockton, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Tracy Nursing and Rehabilitation Center12.6 miTracy, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Hampton Post Acute12.8 miStockton, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5abuse
Noble Care Center12.9 miStockton, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5abuse
Fulton Gardens Post Acute, LLC13.4 miStockton, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Almond Vista Healthcare13.5 miModesto, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Manteca →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 055917.