Jerold Phelps Comm Hosp SNF
733 Cedar Street, Garberville, CA 95542 · Humboldt County · 17 certified beds · avg 8 residents/day · certified since Aug 25, 1992
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
9.39
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5
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 self-reported quality measures.
All citations in the current public record (28)
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 23, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Sep 12, 2025 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not have a registered nurse on duty at least 8 hours a day, or did not have a registered nurse serving full-time as director of nursing. |
| Sep 12, 2025 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not conduct and document a facility-wide assessment of what staff, supplies, and resources it needs to care for its residents properly — during everyday operations, nights, weekends, and emergencies. |
| Sep 12, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. |
| Sep 12, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Sep 12, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Sep 12, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. |
| Apr 17, 2025 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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 |
| Apr 17, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Apr 17, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Mar 1, 2024 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable. |
| Mar 1, 2024 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. |
| Mar 1, 2024 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not have a proper governing body legally responsible for its policies and operations, or that body failed to appoint a properly licensed administrator to manage the facility. |
| Mar 1, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Mar 1, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. |
| Mar 1, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Mar 1, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. |
| May 20, 2021 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. |
| May 20, 2021 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. |
| May 20, 2021 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| May 20, 2021 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable. |
| May 20, 2021 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| May 20, 2021 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. |
| May 20, 2021 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| May 20, 2021 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| May 20, 2021 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. |
| May 20, 2021 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them. |
| May 20, 2021 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (7 → 6).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 11 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 7 | 0 | F |
| 2025 | 9 | 0 | F |
| 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)
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
| Measure | This facility | California avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 9.39 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 1% in California; top 1% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 1.55 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 4% in California; top 4% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 8.80 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 1% in California; top 1% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 1.28 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 5% in California; top 3% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 0.0 | 36.7 | 45.8 | — |
| RN turnover (%) | 0.0 | 38.1 | 42.9 | — |
Hours are per resident per day, 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 7.74, RN 1.28, weekend 7.25. Staffing rating: 1/5.
Self-reported quality measures
Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.
Quality measures rating: 2/5 · long-stay residents: 2/5 · short-stay residents: —/5
Who owns this facility
Government - Hospital district
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scown, Kent | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/06/2016 |
| Scown, Kent | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/04/1998 |
| Scown, Kent | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/04/1998 |
| Southern Humboldt Community Healthcare District | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/21/1978 |
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
- "How many hours a day is a registered nurse physically in the building, including weekends?"
- "How do you decide you have enough staff and resources for your resident population, including nights and weekends?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "Does a pharmacist review every resident's medications and chart monthly, and how are their concerns acted on?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "How do you monitor residents' weight and eating, and what happens when someone starts losing weight?"
- "What specific steps do you take to prevent abuse and neglect, and how are staff trained on them?"
- "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
- "Can I see the results and plan of correction from your most recent state inspection?"
Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fortuna Rehabilitation and Wellness Center, LP | 38.4 mi | Fortuna, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 |
Compare this facility with the 1 closest →
All facilities in Garberville →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555516.