California ›Hayward

Hayward Gardens Post Acute

1628 B Street, Hayward, CA 94541 · Alameda County · 75 certified beds · avg 71 residents/day · certified since Feb 1, 1969 · 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 →

Part of chain: PACS GROUP (274 facilities, chain avg rating 2.9★)

4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
1
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.69
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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

Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · 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.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Jun 9, 2023 · F-0692

The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration.

Why it matters: Malnutrition and dehydration can quickly weaken a resident and lead to serious complications.

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: Jul 9, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (32)

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 7, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not properly inform residents or their representatives about arbitration agreements — contracts that give up the right to sue in court — including their right to refuse to sign.
May 7, 2026E · 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.
May 7, 2026D · 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.
May 7, 2026D · 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.
May 7, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Apr 30, 2026F · 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. · from a complaint
Apr 30, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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
Apr 30, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide appropriate treatment and services to residents with a mental health condition, difficulty adjusting emotionally, or a history of trauma or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). · from a complaint
Jan 2, 2026D · 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
Dec 5, 2024D · 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.
Dec 5, 2024D · 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.
Dec 5, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own.
Nov 25, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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. · from a complaint
Aug 17, 2023D · 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. · from a complaint
Jun 9, 2023▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration.
Jun 9, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service.
Jun 9, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service.
Jun 9, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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.
Jun 9, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Jun 9, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives.
Jun 9, 2023F · 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.
Jun 9, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices.
Jun 9, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not update each resident's care assessment at least once every 3 months. These regular check-ins keep the resident's care plan matched to their current condition.
Jun 9, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not honor residents' right to form and take part in resident or family groups, such as a resident council.
Jun 9, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable.
Jun 9, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility allowed residents to lose the ability to do daily activities — like bathing, dressing, and eating — when there was no medical reason for the decline. Good care helps residents keep the abilities they have.
Jun 9, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline.
Jun 9, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility used feeding tubes without a valid medical reason or the resident's agreement, or did not provide proper care to residents who have feeding tubes.
Jun 9, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it.
Jun 9, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
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 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.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (3 → 5).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2023191G ▲
202440E
202690F

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)3.694.313.95bottom 20% in California; bottom 46% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.660.610.69top 27% in California; top 40% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.263.903.50bottom 14% in California; bottom 45% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.510.510.48top 30% in California; top 32% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)30.636.745.8top 31% in California; top 15% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)27.338.142.9top 31% in California; top 24% 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 4.27, RN 0.77, weekend 3.77. 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: 5/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Providence Group INCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%01/11/2023
Apt, FrederickIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/11/2023
Hadley, MatthewIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE03/01/2023
Hadley, MatthewIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE03/01/2023
Hancock, MarkIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/11/2023
Mitchell, JohnIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/11/2023
Murray, JasonIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/11/2023

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
Hayward Hills Health Care Center0.1 miHayward, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Sage Post Acute0.2 miHayward, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Canyon Creek Post-Acute0.5 miCastro Valley, CA★★★★☆4/5
Baywood Court Health Center0.7 miCastro Valley, CA★★★★★5/5
Vista Post Acute1.1 miHayward, CA★★★★☆4/5
We Care Skilled Nursing Facility1.1 miHayward, CA★★★★★4/5
Bethesda Home1.2 miHayward, CA★★★☆☆4/5
St Anthony Care Center1.2 miHayward, CA★★★★★5/5
Serenethos Care Center, LLC1.4 miHayward, CA★★★★★5/5
East Bay Post-Acute1.6 miCastro Valley, CA★★☆☆☆1/5
Morton Bakar Center1.6 miHayward, CA★★★★★5/5
Valley Pointe Nursing & Rehabilitation Center1.7 miCastro Valley, CA★★★★★4/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Hayward →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 055434.