How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Jacob Healthcare Center
4075 54th St., San Diego, CA 92105 (opens Google Maps) · San Diego County · (619) 582-5168· 128 certified beds · avg 120 residents/day · certified since Jan 1, 1967 · 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: LINKS HEALTHCARE GROUP (32 facilities, chain avg rating 2.9★)
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jan 15, 2026
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.21
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: 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.
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 34 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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. · from a complaint F-0550
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
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
View all 34 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Apr 1, 2026 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0550 |
| Jan 15, 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 |
| Jan 15, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Jan 15, 2026 | 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 |
| Jan 15, 2026 | 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 |
| Jan 15, 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 |
| Jan 15, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Jan 15, 2026 | 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 |
| Jan 15, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the social services residents need — such as counseling, help with adjustment, or connecting to outside resources — to achieve the best possible quality of life. · F-0745 |
| Jan 15, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Jan 15, 2026 | 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 |
| Nov 27, 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. · from a complaint · F-0761 |
| Sep 12, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 12, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · F-0697 |
| Sep 12, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Sep 12, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not coordinate resident assessments with the state's pre-admission screening program for mental illness and intellectual disabilities, or failed to refer residents for the special services they need. · F-0644 |
| Sep 12, 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 |
| Sep 12, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Sep 12, 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 |
| Sep 12, 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. · F-0689 |
| Sep 12, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · F-0698 |
| Sep 12, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not try to gradually reduce doses of mood- and mind-altering medications or use non-drug approaches first, as required, or used 'as needed' psychiatric drugs without proper limits. · F-0758 |
| Sep 12, 2024 | 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 12, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them. · F-0867 |
| Sep 12, 2024 | 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 |
| Jan 31, 2024 | 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 |
| Jan 31, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0726 |
| Jun 11, 2021 | 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 |
| Jun 11, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · F-0583 |
| Jun 11, 2021 | 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 |
| Jun 11, 2021 | 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 |
| Jun 11, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them. · F-0867 |
| Jun 11, 2021 | 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 |
| Jun 11, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations. · F-0883 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (13 → 10).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2021
All citations: 7
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 16
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
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 | 7 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 16 | 0 | E |
| 2026 | 11 | 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: 3.21
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.66
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.10
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) | 3.21 | 4.31 | 3.95 | bottom 3% in California; bottom 22% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.66 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 27% in California; top 40% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.10 | 3.90 | 3.50 | bottom 7% in California; bottom 37% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.85 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 10% in California; top 10% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 58.9 | 36.7 | 45.8 | bottom 3% in California; bottom 18% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 64.9 | 38.1 | 42.9 | bottom 10% in California; bottom 16% 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 4.60, RN 0.95, weekend 4.45.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.60 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 2/5.
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 Jacob Healthcare 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 - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rodriguez, Curtis | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2023 |
| Tilford, Toby | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2023 |
| Tilford, Toby | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2023 |
All 3 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 Links Healthcare Group — 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.
- Lodi Creek Post Acute — Lodi, CA · overall 3/5abuse
- Meadow Creek Post-Acute — Paramount, CA · overall 1/5
- River Pointe Post-Acute — Carmichael, CA · overall 1/5abuse
- Riverbank Post-Acute — Riverbank, CA · overall 1/5
- Stillwater Post-Acute — El Cajon, CA · overall 2/5
- Stratford Villa Post-Acute — Livermore, CA · overall 4/5
- The Bellefontaine Healthcare Center — Pasadena, CA · overall 3/5
- The Grove Post-Acute — Woodland, CA · overall 4/5
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.
- "Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
- "What written notices do we get before any transfer or discharge, and what is your bed-hold policy?"
- "If my family member's health suddenly changes, how quickly do you reassess them and update their care?"
- "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?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "Who is on the team that builds each resident's care plan, and how quickly is it in place after admission?"
- "How many aides are on each shift, and how do you make sure every resident gets timely help with bathing, dressing, and meals?"
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 59% 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 61 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| University Care Center | 0.2 mi | San Diego, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Arroyo Vista Nursing Center | 1.5 mi | San Diego, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Brighton Place San Diego | 2.1 mi | San Diego, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| La Mesa Healthcare Center | 2.3 mi | La Mesa, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Bella Vista Health Center | 3.1 mi | Lemon Grove, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Golden Hill Post Acute | 3.2 mi | San Diego, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Parkway Hills Nursing & Rehabilitation | 3.4 mi | La Mesa, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Arbor Hills Nursing Center | 3.4 mi | La Mesa, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Lemon Grove Care and Rehabilitation Center | 3.5 mi | Lemon Grove, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Country Manor la Mesa Healthcare Center | 3.7 mi | La Mesa, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Grossmont Gardens Healthcare Center | 4.0 mi | La Mesa, CA | —/5 | ||
| Amaya Springs Health Care Center | 4.1 mi | Spring Valley, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 4/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in San Diego, CA — 83 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Kearny Mesa Convalescent and Nursing Home — San Diego, CA · overall 5/5
- La Jolla Post-Acute — La Jolla, CA · overall 4/5
- La Paloma Healthcare Center — Oceanside, CA · overall 5/5
- Lakeside Special Care Center — Lakeside, CA · overall 5/5
- Magnolia Post Acute Care — El Cajon, CA · overall 3/5abuse
- Meadowbrook Village Christian Retirement Community — Escondido, 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 055508.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).