Healthcare Centre of Fresno
1665 M Street, Fresno, CA 93721 · Fresno County · 155 certified beds · avg 141 residents/day · certified since Feb 13, 1967
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 · Oct 3, 2024 · 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: Oct 24, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Jul 15, 2024 · 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: Aug 6, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Nov 29, 2023 · 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: Jan 3, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
All citations in the current public record (47)
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 8, 2026 | 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. |
| May 8, 2026 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. |
| May 8, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. |
| May 8, 2026 | 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. |
| May 8, 2026 | 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. |
| May 8, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. |
| May 8, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives. |
| May 8, 2026 | 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. |
| May 8, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| May 8, 2026 | 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. |
| Apr 16, 2026 | 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 |
| Feb 25, 2026 | 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 |
| Feb 4, 2026 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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. · from a complaint |
| Jan 10, 2025 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. |
| Jan 10, 2025 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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 10, 2025 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The 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. |
| Jan 10, 2025 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not serve meals and snacks at times that fit residents' needs, preferences, and requests, or did not offer nourishing alternatives for residents who want to eat outside scheduled meal times. |
| Jan 10, 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 10, 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 10, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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 10, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. |
| Jan 10, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. |
| Jan 10, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Jan 10, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate. |
| Jan 10, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not reassess a resident after a significant change in their condition, such as a sudden decline in health. A full new assessment is required when a resident's condition changes in a major way. |
| Jan 10, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Jan 10, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Jan 10, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 10, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives. |
| Jan 10, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Jan 10, 2025 | 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. |
| Jan 10, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Oct 3, 2024 | ▲ 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 |
| Aug 15, 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 |
| Jul 31, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not protect residents from being involuntarily separated — kept apart from other residents, kept out of their own room, or confined to their room. Isolating a resident this way is a form of mistreatment. · from a complaint |
| Jul 15, 2024 | ▲ 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 |
| Jul 15, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · from a complaint |
| Jul 12, 2024 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests. · from a complaint |
| Jun 11, 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 |
| Nov 29, 2023 | ▲ 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 |
| Nov 13, 2023 | 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. · from a complaint |
| Oct 5, 2023 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. |
| Oct 5, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Oct 5, 2023 | 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. |
| Oct 5, 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. |
| Oct 5, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Oct 5, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (19 → 10).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 8 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2024 | 7 | 2 | G ▲ |
| 2025 | 19 | 0 | F |
| 2026 | 13 | 0 | E |
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)
3 fines totaling $88,049, plus 1 Medicare payment denial period.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Oct 3, 2024 | Fine | $12,256 |
| Jul 12, 2024 | Fine | $70,500 |
| Jul 12, 2024 | Payment Denial | 47 days from Aug 11, 2024 |
| Dec 11, 2023 | Fine | $5,293 |
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) | 3.76 | 4.31 | 3.95 | bottom 24% in California; bottom 50% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.46 | 0.61 | 0.69 | bottom 46% in California; bottom 31% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.55 | 3.90 | 3.50 | bottom 34% in California; top 40% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.44 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 40% in California; top 42% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 0.0 | 36.7 | 45.8 | — |
| RN turnover (%) | 0.0 | 38.1 | 42.9 | — |
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 3.81, RN 0.46, weekend 3.59. 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: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5
Who owns this facility
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Berkowitz Family Trust | Organization | Direct Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2009 |
| Fresno BM, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 5% | 02/01/2018 |
| Katz Fresno Healthcare Partnership | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 5% | 02/01/2018 |
| Narod, Max | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2009 |
| Eretz Fresno Skilled Nursing LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/30/2008 |
| Galley, Chad | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/05/2024 |
| Galley, Chad | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/05/2024 |
| Malley, Roman | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/10/2010 |
| Malley, Roman | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/10/2010 |
| Narod, Max | Individual | Trustee of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2009 |
| Rechnitz, Shlomo | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2009 |
| Rechnitz, Shlomo | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2009 |
| Rockport Administrative Services, LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2010 |
| Rockport Administrative Services, LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/21/2025 |
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?"
- "How does your pharmacist review residents' medications, and how quickly can you fill new or urgent prescriptions?"
- "What systems do you use to prevent medication errors, and what happens when one occurs?"
- "Can we tour the resident rooms, bathrooms, and common areas today, including areas not on the usual tour route?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "Could I join residents for a meal to see the food quality and temperature for myself?"
- "How do you track each resident's food allergies and preferences, and what happens if they don't like what's served?"
- "How do you keep residents' medical records accurate, complete, and secure?"
- "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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fresno Postacute Care | 1.1 mi | Fresno, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Community Subacute and Transitional Care Center | 2.5 mi | Fresno, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Sierra Vista Healthcare | 2.5 mi | Fresno, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Oakwood Gardens Care Center | 2.8 mi | Fresno, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Covenant Post Acute | 2.8 mi | Fresno, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Keystone Post-Acute | 3.1 mi | Fresno, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Orchard Post Acute | 3.3 mi | Fresno, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Stonehaven Senior Living | 3.5 mi | Fresno, CA | —/5 | ||
| Evergreen Care Center | 3.9 mi | Fresno, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Pacific Gardens Nursing and Rehabilitation Center | 3.9 mi | Fresno, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 055626.