Kings Healthcare & Wellness Center LP

Name: Kings Healthcare & Wellness Center LP
Address: 851 LESLIE LANE, Hanford, CA, 93230, US
Telephone: 5595824414

851 Leslie Lane, Hanford, CA 93230 · Kings County · 70 certified beds · avg 62 residents/day · certified since Sep 16, 1991

Part of chain: CORPORATE INTERFACE SERVICES (40 facilities, chain avg rating 2.5★)

4/5

Health inspection rating (on-site)

Serious findings on record

$8,824

Fines, last 3 years

3.69

Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5

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.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · 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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Feb 9, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · 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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Feb 22, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (23)

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
Jun 4, 2026	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records.
Jun 4, 2026	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.
Jun 4, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Jun 4, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Jun 4, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Jun 4, 2026	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.
Jun 4, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Jun 4, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Jan 16, 2025	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Apr 29, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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
Jan 23, 2024	▲ G · Actual harm, one-off	The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · from a complaint
Dec 19, 2022	▲ G · Actual 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.
Dec 19, 2022	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.
Dec 19, 2022	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Dec 19, 2022	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Dec 19, 2022	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Dec 19, 2022	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
Dec 19, 2022	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Dec 19, 2022	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.
Dec 19, 2022	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Dec 19, 2022	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail.
Dec 19, 2022	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices.
Dec 19, 2022	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (1 → 8).

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.

Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)

1 fine totaling $8,824.

Date	Type	Amount / length
Jan 23, 2024	Fine	$8,824

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)	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 (%)	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 4.36, RN 0.25, weekend 3.99. 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: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5

Who owns this facility

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

Questions to ask on your visit

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

"How do you assess and manage residents' pain, especially for those who have trouble communicating?"
"What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
"How do your actual daily staffing levels compare to what's reported on Medicare's Care Compare website?"
"Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
"If my family member is able to manage their own medications, would you allow it, and how is that decided?"
"Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
"Where do you post your daily staffing numbers, and can I see today's?"
"How does your pharmacist review residents' medications, and how quickly can you fill new or urgent prescriptions?"
"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
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

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Hanford →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555485.

The Care File

Visit checklist — Kings Healthcare & Wellness Center LP

851 Leslie Lane, Hanford, CA 93230 · 5595824414

Health inspection rating 4/5 · CMS overall 4/5· Fines (3y): $8,824

Most serious findings on record:

▲ Jan 23, 2024 (F-0697, Actual harm, one-off): The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it.
▲ Dec 19, 2022 (F-0689, Actual 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.

Questions for the administrator:

☐ "How do you assess and manage residents' pain, especially for those who have trouble communicating?"
☐ "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
☐ "How do your actual daily staffing levels compare to what's reported on Medicare's Care Compare website?"
☐ "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
☐ "If my family member is able to manage their own medications, would you allow it, and how is that decided?"
☐ "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
☐ "Where do you post your daily staffing numbers, and can I see today's?"
☐ "How does your pharmacist review residents' medications, and how quickly can you fill new or urgent prescriptions?"
☐ "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?"

While you're there, notice:

☐ Smell and cleanliness in hallways, not just the lobby
☐ How staff speak to residents; call lights answered promptly
☐ Residents up, dressed, and engaged (visit mealtimes and a weekend if you can)

Data: CMS Provider Data Catalog, version 2026-08-01 · CCN 555485 · Verify at medicare.gov/care-compare · Printed from The Care File (thecarefile.com)