How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Hillcrest Post Acute
450 Hayes Lane, Petaluma, CA 94952 (opens Google Maps) · Sonoma County · (707) 778-8686· 59 certified beds · avg 54 residents/day · certified since Jun 27, 1980 · 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: WEST HARBOR HEALTHCARE (8 facilities, chain avg rating 3.3★)
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Sep 11, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.23
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: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5 · 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 30 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
The facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. F-0814
The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. F-0584
View all 30 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 11, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Sep 11, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. · F-0814 |
| Sep 11, 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. · F-0584 |
| Sep 11, 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. · F-0607 |
| Sep 11, 2025 | 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 |
| Sep 11, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0677 |
| Sep 11, 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 |
| Sep 11, 2025 | 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 |
| Sep 11, 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 |
| Mar 17, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Apr 22, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not post its nurse staffing information every day. Nursing homes must publicly display how many nurses and aides are on duty each day. · F-0732 |
| Apr 22, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not designate a qualified infection preventionist — a trained person responsible for running the infection prevention and control program. · F-0882 |
| Apr 22, 2024 | 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 |
| Apr 22, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Apr 22, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility's quality committee — the internal group responsible for finding and fixing care problems — did not have the required members or did not meet at least every three months. · from a complaint · F-0868 |
| Apr 22, 2024 | 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 |
| Apr 22, 2024 | 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 |
| Mar 4, 2022 | 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 |
| Mar 4, 2022 | 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 |
| Mar 4, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0657 |
| Mar 4, 2022 | 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 |
| Mar 4, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| Mar 4, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804 |
| Mar 4, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0554 |
| Mar 4, 2022 | 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 |
| Mar 4, 2022 | 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. · F-0684 |
| Mar 4, 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 |
| Mar 4, 2022 | 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 |
| Mar 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 |
| Mar 4, 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 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (7 → 9).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2022
All citations: 13
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 7
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 10
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 | 13 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 7 | 0 | F |
| 2025 | 10 | 0 | F |
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: 4.23
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.49
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.89
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) | 4.23 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 42% in California; top 31% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.49 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 49% in California; bottom 36% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.89 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 40% in California; top 26% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.46 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 36% in California; top 38% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 25.9 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 19% in California; top 8% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | — | 38.1 | 42.9 | — |
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 4.38, RN 0.51, weekend 4.02.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.38 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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Hillcrest 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Galbasini, Kevin | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 45% | 06/30/2016 |
| Gill, Daniel | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 45% | 06/30/2016 |
| Valley Capital Investments LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 5% | 06/30/2016 |
| West Harbor Healthcare LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 90% | 06/30/2016 |
| Galbasini, Kevin | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/30/2016 |
| Galbasini, Kevin | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/30/2016 |
| Gill, Daniel | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/11/2016 |
| Gill, Daniel | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/30/2016 |
| Gill, Daniel | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/30/2016 |
All 9 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 West Harbor Healthcare — 8 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.
- Niles Canyon Post Acute — Fremont, CA · overall 5/5
- Quartz Hill Post Acute — Redding, CA · overall 3/5
- Redding Post Acute — Redding, CA · overall 4/5
- Alta View Post Acute — Los Angeles, CA · overall 1/5
- Bridgeview Post Acute — Yuba City, CA · overall 2/5abuse
- Brighton Post Acute — Hanford, CA · overall 3/5
- Gridley Post Acute — Gridley, CA · overall 4/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "Can I see where garbage is stored and how often it's removed?"
- "Can we tour the resident rooms, bathrooms, and common areas today, including areas not on the usual tour route?"
- "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 many aides are on each shift, and how do you make sure every resident gets timely help with bathing, dressing, and meals?"
- "What do you do daily to keep residents moving, and how do you help residents at risk of losing mobility?"
- "What is your current medication error rate, and what have you changed to bring errors down?"
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 26% 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 25 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Petaluma Post-Acute Rehabilitation | 0.0 mi | Petaluma, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Ridgeway Post Acute | 0.1 mi | Petaluma, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| North Bay Post Acute | 0.6 mi | Petaluma, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Vineyard Post Acute | 2.5 mi | Petaluma, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Novato Healthcare Center | 9.6 mi | Novato, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Valley of the Moon Post Acute | 10.8 mi | Sonoma, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Broadway Villa Post Acute | 11.0 mi | Sonoma, CA | ★★★★★ | 3/5 | |
| Sonoma Post Acute | 11.3 mi | Sonoma, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Northvine Postacute Care | 14.2 mi | Santa Rosa, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Apple Valley Post-Acute Rehab | 14.8 mi | Sebastopol, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Santa Rosa Post Acute | 15.1 mi | Santa Rosa, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Blue Oak Post-Acute | 15.3 mi | Santa Rosa, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Sonoma, CA — 18 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Park View Post Acute — Santa Rosa, CA · overall 2/5abuse
- Spring Lake Village — Santa Rosa, CA · overall 5/5
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 555127.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).