How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Indian Canyon Post Acute
57333 Joshua Ln, Yucca Valley, CA 92284 (opens Google Maps) · San Bernardino County · (760) 853-4750· 99 certified beds · avg 92 residents/day · certified since Jun 8, 2001 · 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: ROCKWELL HEALTHCARE (5 facilities, chain avg rating 4.0★)
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Dec 4, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.01
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 35 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 honor residents' right to form and take part in resident or family groups, such as a resident council. F-0565
The 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. F-0676
View all 35 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 4, 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 |
| Dec 4, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not honor residents' right to form and take part in resident or family groups, such as a resident council. · F-0565 |
| Dec 4, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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. · F-0676 |
| Dec 4, 2025 | 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 |
| Dec 4, 2025 | 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 |
| Dec 4, 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. · F-0686 |
| Dec 4, 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 |
| Dec 4, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0756 |
| Dec 4, 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 |
| Dec 4, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide special eating equipment and utensils — like adaptive cups or easy-grip silverware — for residents who need them, along with appropriate help at meals. · F-0810 |
| Jan 30, 2025 | 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 |
| Nov 14, 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 |
| Nov 14, 2024 | 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 |
| Nov 14, 2024 | 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 |
| Nov 14, 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. · F-0842 |
| Mar 25, 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. · from a complaint · F-0656 |
| Jan 18, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0584 |
| Nov 27, 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 |
| Nov 15, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not let a resident or their legal representative see or buy copies of the resident's own records. · from a complaint · F-0573 |
| Oct 19, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not make sure resident assessments were done by a qualified health professional. Assessments guide all of a resident's care, so the person doing them must be properly trained. · from a complaint · F-0642 |
| Dec 10, 2021 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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. · F-0637 |
| Dec 10, 2021 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The 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. · F-0638 |
| Dec 10, 2021 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Dec 10, 2021 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not make sure resident assessments were done by a qualified health professional. Assessments guide all of a resident's care, so the person doing them must be properly trained. · F-0642 |
| Dec 10, 2021 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care. · F-0725 |
| Dec 10, 2021 | 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 |
| Dec 10, 2021 | 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 |
| Dec 10, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups. · F-0558 |
| Dec 10, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not fully assess residents on time — a complete assessment of health, abilities, and needs is required when a resident is first admitted and at least once every 12 months after that. · F-0636 |
| Dec 10, 2021 | 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 |
| Dec 10, 2021 | 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. · F-0686 |
| Dec 10, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure the resident's doctor reviewed their care and wrote, signed, and dated progress notes and orders at each required visit. · F-0711 |
| Dec 10, 2021 | 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 |
| Dec 10, 2021 | 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 |
| Dec 10, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0881 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (4 → 10).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2021
All citations: 15
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 3
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 6
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 11
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 15 | 0 | F |
| 2023 | 3 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 6 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 11 | 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: 4.01
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.42
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.65
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) | 4.01 | 4.31 | 3.95 | bottom 43% in California; top 39% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.42 | 0.61 | 0.69 | bottom 36% in California; bottom 24% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.65 | 3.90 | 3.50 | bottom 43% in California; top 35% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.21 | 0.51 | 0.48 | bottom 14% in California; bottom 15% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 44.0 | 36.7 | 45.8 | bottom 28% in California; top 47% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 75.0 | 38.1 | 42.9 | bottom 5% in California; bottom 9% 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 3.75, RN 0.39, weekend 3.41.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.75 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: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 1/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Indian Canyon 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elite Legacy Health LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 08/01/2022 |
| Golboo, Sepehr | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 08/01/2022 |
| Powell, Evangeline | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 08/01/2022 |
| Rockwell Healthcare LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 08/01/2022 |
| Rockwell Healthcare LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 08/01/2022 |
| Elite Legacy Health LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/07/2025 |
| Figalan, Edgar Emmanuel | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/20/2025 |
| Figalan, Edgar Emmanuel | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/20/2025 |
| Golboo, Sepehr | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2022 |
| Powell, Evangeline | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2022 |
| Powell, Evangeline | Individual | Individual Is an Owner, Partner or Trustee of Any ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/01/2026 |
| Powell, Evangeline | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/07/2025 |
| Rockwell Healthcare LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2022 |
| Rockwell Healthcare LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2022 |
| Siron, Rachelle | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2022 |
| Siron, Rachelle | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2022 |
All 16 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 Rockwell Healthcare — 5 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.
- Joshua Tree Post Acute — Yucca Valley, CA · overall 4/5
- University Post Acute — Mentone, CA · overall 5/5
- Yucaipa Hills Post Acute — Yucaipa, CA · overall 4/5
- Creekside Post Acute — Yucaipa, CA · overall 3/5
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?"
- "Does your facility have an active resident council, and how does management respond to its concerns?"
- "How do you help residents maintain their daily living skills, and how do you measure whether it's working?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "How do you prevent bedsores for residents who can't move themselves, and how often are at-risk residents repositioned?"
- "How does your pharmacist review residents' medications, and how quickly can you fill new or urgent prescriptions?"
- "Does a pharmacist review every resident's medications and chart monthly, and how are their concerns acted on?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the California midpoint — how does the weekend schedule differ from a weekday?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 44% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 16 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 (within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Joshua Tree Post Acute | 1.7 mi | Yucca Valley, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Hi-Desert Medical Center D/P SNF | 7.3 mi | Joshua Tree, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| California Nursing & Rehabilitation Center | 19.1 mi | Palm Springs, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Desert Regional Medical Center D/P SNF | 19.9 mi | Palm Springs, 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.
- Inland Christian Home — Ontario, 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
- Loma Linda Post Acute — Loma Linda, CA · overall 4/5
- Madison Grove Post Acute — Redlands, CA · overall 3/5
- Meadows Ridge Care Center — Colton, CA · overall 4/5
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 555773.