How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Heritage Park Nursing Center
275 Garnet Way, Upland, CA 91786 (opens Google Maps) · San Bernardino County · (909) 949-4887· 70 certified beds · avg 67 residents/day · certified since Jul 10, 1992 · 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: GENERATIONS HEALTHCARE (27 facilities, chain avg rating 4.1★)
5/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jun 19, 2025
1
Serious findings on record
most recent Apr 17, 2025
$0
Fines, last 3 years
5.07
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: ★★★★★5/5 · CMS overall rating: 5/5 · 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 · Apr 17, 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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Apr 17, 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): 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: May 2, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 21 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
The facility gave residents unnecessary mind-altering (psychotropic) medications, or used drugs in a way that restrained residents by dulling their ability to think, move, or function. F-0605
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
View all 21 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 |
|---|---|---|
| May 13, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal 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 |
| Jun 19, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility gave residents unnecessary mind-altering (psychotropic) medications, or used drugs in a way that restrained residents by dulling their ability to think, move, or function. · F-0605 |
| Jun 19, 2025 | 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 |
| Jun 19, 2025 | 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 |
| May 23, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · from a complaint · F-0607 |
| Apr 17, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | 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 · F-0689 |
| May 16, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641 |
| May 16, 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 |
| Apr 8, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint · F-0609 |
| Feb 27, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · from a complaint · F-0610 |
| Feb 10, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Jan 26, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint · F-0842 |
| Nov 4, 2022 | 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 4, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 4, 2022 | 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 4, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0688 |
| Nov 4, 2022 | 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 4, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0695 |
| Nov 4, 2022 | 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 4, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. · F-0814 |
| Nov 4, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure its staff were vaccinated for COVID-19 in accordance with the federal requirements in effect at the time. · F-0888 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (2 → 3).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2022
All citations: 9
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 6
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 5
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2026
All citations: 1
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 9 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 6 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 5 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2026 | 1 | 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: 5.07
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.51
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 4.40
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) | 5.07 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 13% in California; top 12% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.51 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 44% in California; bottom 40% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.40 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 17% in California; top 14% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.21 | 0.51 | 0.48 | bottom 13% in California; bottom 14% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 42.0 | 36.7 | 45.8 | bottom 33% in California; top 42% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 0.0 | 38.1 | 42.9 | top 1% in California; top 1% 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 3.79, RN 0.38, weekend 3.29.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.79 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 4/5.
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: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Heritage Park Nursing Center. 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 - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bmo Bank National Association | Organization | 5% or Greater Security Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/20/2023 |
| Mastrocola, Lois | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/20/2023 |
| Mastrocola, Lois | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/1998 |
| Mastrocola, Lois | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/1998 |
| Olds, Thomas | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/1998 |
| Olds, Thomas | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/1998 |
All 6 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Generations Healthcare — 27 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.
- Horizon Health & Subacute Center — Fresno, CA · overall 2/5
- Kearny Mesa Convalescent and Nursing Home — San Diego, CA · overall 5/5
- Lakeside Special Care Center — Lakeside, CA · overall 5/5
- Lawton Skilled Nursing & Rehabilitation Center — San Francisco, CA · overall 5/5
- Lompoc Skilled Nursing & Rehabilitation Center — Lompoc, CA · overall 4/5
- Newport Nursing and Rehabilitation Center — Newport Beach, CA · overall 3/5abuse
- Pleasanton Nursing and Rehabilitation Center — Pleasanton, CA · overall 5/5
- Plum Tree Care Center — San Jose, CA · overall 5/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 26 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.
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
- "What percentage of your residents are on antipsychotic or sedating medications, and how do you work to reduce that?"
- "How does your pharmacist review residents' medications, and how quickly can you fill new or urgent prescriptions?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "What specific steps do you take to prevent abuse and neglect, and how are staff trained on them?"
- "Who completes resident assessments here, and how do you check them for accuracy?"
- "How do you screen new residents for mental health and disability-related needs, and how do you provide the specialized services they require?"
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 42% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (12 closest of 79 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Upland Rehabilitation and Care Center | 0.6 mi | Upland, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Villa Mesa Care Center | 0.7 mi | Upland, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 4/5 | |
| Ontario Grove Healthcare & Wellness Centre, LP | 0.9 mi | Ontario, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 4/5 | |
| Las Colinas Post Acute | 1.2 mi | Ontario, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Community Extended Care Hospital of Montclair | 2.6 mi | Montclair, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Montclair Manor Care Center | 3.2 mi | Montclair, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Rancho Mesa Care Center | 3.4 mi | Alta Loma, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Ontario Healthcare Center | 3.7 mi | Ontario, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Claremont Heights Post Acute | 4.1 mi | Claremont, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Inland Christian Home | 4.3 mi | Ontario, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Pilgrim Place Health Services Center | 4.6 mi | Claremont, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Claremont Manor Care Center | 4.6 mi | Claremont, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in San Bernardino, CA — 55 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Hi-Desert Medical Center D/P SNF — Joshua Tree, CA · overall 1/5abuse
- Highland Care Center of Redlands — Redlands, CA · overall 3/5
- Highland Palms Healthcare Center — Highland, CA · overall 4/5
- Hillcrest Nursing Home — San Bernardino, CA · overall 5/5
- Indian Canyon Post Acute — Yucca Valley, CA · overall 4/5
- Joshua Tree Post Acute — Yucca Valley, CA · overall 4/5
- Knolls West Post Acute LLC — Victorville, 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 555514.