How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Harvest Crossing Post Acute
469 East North Street, Manteca, CA 95336 (opens Google Maps) · San Joaquin County · (209) 823-1788· 99 certified beds · avg 91 residents/day · certified since Apr 10, 1968 · Medicare and Medicaid certified
Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →
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)
inspected Nov 21, 2024
1
Serious findings on record
most recent Dec 29, 2025
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.20
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5 · how star ratings work →
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 quality measures from resident assessments and claims.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · 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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · 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): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Dec 30, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 50 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The 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 F-0628
The 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 F-0627
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. · from a complaint F-0600
View all 50 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Apr 7, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 · F-0628 |
| Feb 26, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 · F-0627 |
| Dec 29, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Jul 3, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint · F-0584 |
| Apr 2, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0657 |
| Apr 2, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · from a complaint · F-0697 |
| Nov 21, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658 |
| Nov 21, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0761 |
| Nov 21, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. · F-0801 |
| Nov 21, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0812 |
| Nov 21, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0880 |
| Nov 21, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0550 |
| Nov 21, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0558 |
| Nov 21, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · F-0583 |
| Nov 21, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Nov 21, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0645 |
| Nov 21, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692 |
| Nov 21, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide routine dental care and 24-hour emergency dental care for residents. · F-0790 |
| Nov 21, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations. · F-0883 |
| Nov 21, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0919 |
| Nov 21, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0949 |
| Nov 21, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 · F-0684 |
| Apr 16, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0623 |
| Nov 9, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0656 |
| Nov 9, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0644 |
| Nov 9, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658 |
| Nov 9, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not help a resident get vision and hearing services — such as eye exams, glasses, hearing tests, or hearing aids. · F-0685 |
| Nov 9, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0686 |
| Nov 9, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0690 |
| Nov 9, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not safely and appropriately administer IV fluids (fluids given through a vein) for residents who needed them. · F-0694 |
| Nov 9, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755 |
| Nov 9, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0757 |
| Nov 9, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0759 |
| Nov 9, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0761 |
| Nov 9, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0812 |
| Nov 9, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0849 |
| Nov 9, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0880 |
| Nov 9, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0881 |
| Nov 9, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0919 |
| Nov 9, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0949 |
| Sep 22, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 · F-0684 |
| Nov 18, 2021 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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. · F-0812 |
| Nov 18, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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. · F-0550 |
| Nov 18, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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. · F-0558 |
| Nov 18, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0761 |
| Nov 18, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0880 |
| Nov 18, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0578 |
| Nov 18, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0687 |
| Nov 18, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| Nov 18, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives. · F-0806 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (17 → 15).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2021
All citations: 9
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 18
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 17
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 4
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2026
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 0
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 9 | 0 | F |
| 2023 | 18 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 17 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 4 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2026 | 2 | 0 | D |
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)
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
What these staffing numbers mean →
This facilityCalifornia averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 4.20
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.42
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.78
California average: 3.90
U.S. average: 3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | California avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 4.20 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 45% in California; top 32% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.42 | 0.61 | 0.69 | bottom 37% in California; bottom 25% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.78 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 48% in California; top 30% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.41 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 44% in California; top 46% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 39.7 | 36.7 | 45.8 | bottom 39% in California; top 35% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 42.9 | 38.1 | 42.9 | bottom 39% in California; bottom 49% in the U.S. |
Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — 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.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.41 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.
Quality measures: assessments & claims
Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.
Quality measures rating: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Harvest Crossing Post Acute. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Calculate a stay from a quote you receive
Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.
Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.
Before you compare prices
- Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
- Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
- Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
Who owns this facility
How to read ownership records →
Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clawson, Scott | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 44% | 11/01/2021 |
| Clawson, Scott | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2021 |
| Kalesta Healthcare Group, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 11/01/2021 |
| Williams, Ryan | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 44% | 11/01/2021 |
| Alvarenga, Oscar | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2021 |
| Bush, Steven | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2022 |
| Bush, Steven | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2022 |
| Chen, Kai Shin | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2021 |
| Chen, Kai Shin | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2021 |
| Clawson, Scott | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2021 |
| Fields, Domonique | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2021 |
| Fields, Domonique | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2021 |
| Flake, Ethan | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/07/2024 |
| Flake, Ethan | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/07/2024 |
| Hinkle, Cortney | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/09/2024 |
| Hinkle, Cortney | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/09/2024 |
| Jones, Steven | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/01/2024 |
| Jones, Steven | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/01/2024 |
| Kalesta Healthcare Group, LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2021 |
| Knight, Kalilah | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/29/2022 |
Showing 20 of 35 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 15 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Kalesta Healthcare Group — 19 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.
- Los Banos Post Acute — Los Banos, CA · overall 2/5
- River View Post Acute — Modesto, CA · overall 2/5
- The Villas at Saratoga Skilled Nsg & Assisted LVG — Saratoga, CA · overall 1/5
- Valley Skilled Nursing Center — Modesto, CA · overall 4/5
- Saint Helens Post Acute — Saint Helens, OR · overall 2/5abuseSFF
- Willow Creek Post Acute — Madras, OR · overall 3/5
- Bellevue Post Acute — Bellevue, WA · overall 3/5
- Bremerton Trails Post Acute — Bremerton, WA · overall 1/5SFF
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 18 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
- "What written notices do we get before any transfer or discharge, and what is your bed-hold policy?"
- "Before a resident is discharged or transferred, how do you make sure the new place can actually meet their needs?"
- "Can we tour the resident rooms, bathrooms, and common areas today, including areas not on the usual tour route?"
- "Who is on the team that builds each resident's care plan, and how quickly is it in place after admission?"
- "How do you assess and manage residents' pain, especially for those who have trouble communicating?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 40% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 35 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (12 closest of 30 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guardian Care and Rehabilitation Center | 1.3 mi | Manteca, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Bethany Home Society San Joaquin County | 6.1 mi | Ripon, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Vintage Faire Nursing & Rehabilitation Center | 11.6 mi | Modesto, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Lincoln Square Post Acute Care | 12.1 mi | Stockton, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| English Oaks Convalescent & Rehabilitation Hospita | 12.4 mi | Modesto, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| North Park Post-Acute | 12.4 mi | Tracy, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Good Samaritan Rehab and Care Center | 12.4 mi | Stockton, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Tracy Nursing and Rehabilitation Center | 12.6 mi | Tracy, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Hampton Post Acute | 12.8 mi | Stockton, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Noble Care Center | 12.9 mi | Stockton, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Fulton Gardens Post Acute, LLC | 13.4 mi | Stockton, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Almond Vista Healthcare | 13.5 mi | Modesto, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in San Joaquin, CA — 24 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Lodi Creek Post Acute — Lodi, CA · overall 3/5abuse
- Lodi Nursing & Rehabilitation — Lodi, CA · overall 4/5
- Meadowood a Health and Rehabilitation Center — Stockton, CA · overall 5/5
- Oak Grove Post Acute — Stockton, CA · overall 1/5abuse
- Riverwood Health Care — Stockton, CA · overall 3/5
Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 055917.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).