How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Highland Care Center of Redlands
700 E Highland Ave, Redlands, CA 92374 (opens Google Maps) · San Bernardino County · (909) 793-2678· 80 certified beds · avg 75 residents/day · certified since Dec 31, 1971 · 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: CAMBRIDGE HEALTHCARE SERVICES (32 facilities, chain avg rating 2.5★)
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jun 11, 2026
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.40
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: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 3/5 · 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.
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 45 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. F-0552
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
The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. F-0684
View all 45 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 11, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. · F-0552 |
| Jun 11, 2026 | 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 |
| Jun 11, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684 |
| Jun 11, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Jun 11, 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). · F-0628 |
| Jun 11, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not enter each resident's assessment information into the required format and send it to the state within 7 days of completing the assessment, as the rules require. · F-0640 |
| Jun 11, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Jun 11, 2026 | 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 |
| Jun 11, 2026 | 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 |
| Jun 11, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility used bed rails without first trying safer alternatives, or without assessing the resident's safety risk, discussing the risks and benefits with the resident or family, getting consent, and installing the rails correctly. · F-0700 |
| Jun 11, 2026 | 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 11, 2026 | 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 |
| Jun 11, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. · F-0814 |
| Sep 26, 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 |
| Sep 25, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0686 |
| Mar 27, 2025 | 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 |
| Feb 21, 2025 | 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 |
| Feb 21, 2025 | 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 |
| Feb 21, 2025 | 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 |
| Feb 21, 2025 | 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 |
| Feb 21, 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 |
| Feb 21, 2025 | 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 |
| Feb 21, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0803 |
| Feb 21, 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 |
| Feb 21, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. · F-0908 |
| Feb 21, 2025 | 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 |
| Feb 21, 2025 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms. · F-0912 |
| Nov 14, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0755 |
| Aug 22, 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 |
| Dec 18, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not let a resident return after a hospital stay or approved leave that lasted longer than the facility's bed-hold policy allowed. Residents generally have the right to come back to the next available bed. · from a complaint · F-0626 |
| Sep 12, 2023 | 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 |
| Aug 12, 2023 | 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 |
| Aug 12, 2023 | 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 |
| Jul 29, 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 |
| Jul 29, 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 |
| Jul 29, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not treat residents with respect and dignity, or did not let them keep and use their own personal belongings. · F-0557 |
| Jul 29, 2022 | 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 |
| Jul 29, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Jul 29, 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 |
| Jul 29, 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 |
| Jul 29, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · F-0726 |
| Jul 29, 2022 | 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 |
| Jul 29, 2022 | 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. · F-0842 |
| Jul 29, 2022 | 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 |
| Jul 29, 2022 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms. · F-0912 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (11 → 13).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2022
All citations: 12
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 4
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 14
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 13
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 | 12 | 0 | F |
| 2023 | 4 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 2 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 14 | 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)
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: 4.40
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.41
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.81
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) | 4.40 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 33% in California; top 26% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.41 | 0.61 | 0.69 | bottom 36% in California; bottom 24% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.81 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 45% in California; top 29% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.27 | 0.51 | 0.48 | bottom 26% in California; bottom 26% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 48.5 | 36.7 | 45.8 | bottom 17% in California; bottom 41% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 40.0 | 38.1 | 42.9 | bottom 47% in California; top 46% 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 4.30, RN 0.40, weekend 3.72.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.30 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: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 2/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Highland Care Center of Redlands. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ag Facilities Operations, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 08/11/2003 |
| Ira E Smedra Living Trust | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 48% | 08/11/2003 |
| Win Win Enterprises, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 48% | 08/11/2003 |
| Butenko, Julie | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/24/2023 |
| Butenko, Julie | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/24/2023 |
| Cambridge Healthcare Services LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2013 |
| Cambridge Healthcare Services LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/12/2025 |
| Capela, Heidi | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/03/2023 |
| Capela, Heidi | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/03/2023 |
| Chimwaza, Pearson | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/12/2025 |
| Consolidated Industries, INC. | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/01/2018 |
| Consolidated Industries, INC. | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/01/2018 |
| Hassell, Lance | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/25/2022 |
| Hassell, Lance | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/25/2022 |
| Latterell, Kyle | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/13/2025 |
| Latterell, Kyle | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/13/2025 |
| Latterell, Kyle | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/21/2025 |
| Lutz, Linda | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2012 |
| Lutz, Linda | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2012 |
| Pai, Shantharam | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/09/2013 |
Showing 20 of 31 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 11 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 Cambridge Healthcare Services — 32 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.
- Huntington Drive Health and Rehabilitation Center — Arcadia, CA · overall 1/5
- La Sierra Care Center — Merced, CA · overall 3/5
- Laguna Hills Health and Rehabilitation Center — Laguna Hills, CA · overall 1/5
- Lassen Nursing & Rehabilitation Center — Susanville, CA · overall 2/5abuse
- Lynwood Post Acute Care Center — Lynwood, CA · overall 2/5
- Madera Rehabilitation & Nursing Center — Madera, CA · overall 1/5
- Merced Nursing & Rehabilitation Ctr — Merced, CA · overall 4/5
- Modesto Post Acute Center — Modesto, CA · overall 5/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 31 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.
- "How do you explain health changes and treatment options to residents and their families?"
- "Who completes resident assessments here, and how do you check them for accuracy?"
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "What do you do daily to keep residents moving, and how do you help residents at risk of losing mobility?"
- "What written notices do we get before any transfer or discharge, and what is your bed-hold policy?"
- "How do you make sure resident assessments are completed and submitted to the state on time?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
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 49% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 31 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 58 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plymouth Village | 0.6 mi | Redlands, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Madison Grove Post Acute | 2.3 mi | Redlands, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Redlands Healthcare Center | 2.4 mi | Redlands, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Redlands Comm Hosp D/P SNF | 2.4 mi | Redlands, CA | ★★★★☆ | 5/5 | |
| Brookside Healthcare Center | 2.9 mi | Redlands, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| University Post Acute | 3.2 mi | Mentone, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Asistencia Villa Healthcare Center | 4.0 mi | Redlands, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Totally Kids Rehabilitation Hospital - D/P SNF | 4.9 mi | Loma Linda, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Heritage Gardens Health Care Center | 5.2 mi | Loma Linda, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Loma Linda Post Acute | 5.2 mi | Loma Linda, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Highland Palms Healthcare Center | 5.7 mi | Highland, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Cedar Mountain Post Acute | 6.3 mi | Yucaipa, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 |
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.
- Hillcrest Nursing Home — San Bernardino, CA · overall 5/5
- Indian Canyon Post Acute — Yucca Valley, CA · overall 4/5
- Inland Christian Home — Ontario, CA · overall 4/5
- Joshua Tree Post Acute — Yucca Valley, CA · overall 4/5
- Knolls West Post Acute LLC — Victorville, CA · overall 3/5
- Las Colinas Post Acute — Ontario, CA · overall 2/5
- Laurel Convalescent Hospital — Fontana, 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 055650.