851 Leslie Lane, Hanford, CA 93230 (opens Google Maps) · Kings County · (559) 582-4414· 70 certified beds · avg 62 residents/day · certified since Sep 16, 1991 · 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: CORPORATE INTERFACE SERVICES (40 facilities, chain avg rating 2.5★)
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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jan 23, 2024 · F-0697 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it.
Why it matters: Untreated pain causes needless suffering and can lead to depression, poor sleep, and declining health.
Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Feb 9, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Dec 19, 2022 · F-0689
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.
Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Feb 22, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 23 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records. F-0851
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
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
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 4, 2026 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records. · F-0851 |
| Jun 4, 2026 | 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 |
| Jun 4, 2026 | 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 |
| Jun 4, 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 4, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Jun 4, 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 4, 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 |
| Jun 4, 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 |
| Jan 16, 2025 | E · Potential for more than 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 |
| Apr 29, 2024 | 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 |
| Jan 23, 2024 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · from a complaint · F-0697 |
| Dec 19, 2022 | ▲ G · Actual 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 |
| Dec 19, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 19, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Dec 19, 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 |
| Dec 19, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 19, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. · F-0814 |
| Dec 19, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 19, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Dec 19, 2022 | 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 |
| Dec 19, 2022 | 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 |
| Dec 19, 2022 | 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 |
| Dec 19, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (1 → 8).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 12 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2024 | 2 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2025 | 1 | 0 | E |
| 2026 | 8 | 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.
How to file a complaint about care →
1 fine totaling $8,824.
Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Jan 23, 2024 | Fine | $8,824 |
What these staffing numbers mean →
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) | 3.69 | 4.31 | 3.95 | bottom 20% in California; bottom 46% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.21 | 0.61 | 0.69 | bottom 2% in California; bottom 3% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.37 | 3.90 | 3.50 | bottom 20% in California; top 49% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.17 | 0.51 | 0.48 | bottom 5% in California; bottom 8% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | — | 36.7 | 45.8 | — |
| 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 4.36, RN 0.25, weekend 3.99.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.36 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 1/5.
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
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Kings Healthcare & Wellness Center LP. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
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.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cooke, Amanda | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/01/2022 |
| Cooke, Amanda | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/01/2022 |
| Corporate Interface Services LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/18/2024 |
| Corporate Interface Services LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/18/2024 |
| Eretz Kings Properties | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2021 |
| Grossman, Stephen | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/27/2021 |
| Grossman, Stephen | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/27/2021 |
| Kings Wellness GP, LLC | Organization | General Partnership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/09/2020 |
| Rechnitz, Shlomo | Individual | Limited Partnership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/09/2020 |
| Rockport Administrative Services, LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2021 |
| Rockport Administrative Services, LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2021 |
All 11 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
CMS lists this facility under the chain Corporate Interface Services — 40 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.
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 39 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hanford Post Acute | 0.9 mi | Hanford, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Brighton Post Acute | 2.2 mi | Hanford, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Kingsburg Center | 15.6 mi | Kingsburg, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Bethel Lutheran Home | 17.7 mi | Selma, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Linwood Meadows Care Center | 17.8 mi | Visalia, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Westgate Gardens Care Center | 17.8 mi | Visalia, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Rolling Hills Care Center | 18.0 mi | Selma, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Sequoia Vista | 18.4 mi | Visalia, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Tulare Healthcare & Wellness Center, LP | 18.9 mi | Tulare, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Orchards at Tulare | 18.9 mi | Tulare, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Grand Oaks Care | 19.0 mi | Tulare, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 |
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555485.
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details