How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
La Mesa Healthcare Center
3780 Massachusetts Avenue, La Mesa, CA 91941 (opens Google Maps) · San Diego County · (619) 465-1313· 94 certified beds · avg 90 residents/day · certified since Apr 1, 1970 · 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: PACS GROUP (274 facilities, chain avg rating 2.9★)
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Mar 27, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.70
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 38 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
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. · from a complaint F-0880
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 F-0609
View all 38 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 |
|---|---|---|
| May 6, 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. · from a complaint · F-0656 |
| Apr 29, 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. · from a complaint · F-0880 |
| Sep 4, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0609 |
| Mar 27, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. · F-0690 |
| Mar 27, 2025 | 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 |
| Mar 27, 2025 | 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 |
| Mar 27, 2025 | 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 |
| Mar 27, 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 |
| Mar 27, 2025 | 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 |
| Mar 27, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. · F-0695 |
| Mar 27, 2025 | 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 |
| Mar 27, 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 |
| Mar 27, 2025 | 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 |
| Oct 12, 2023 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0657 |
| Oct 12, 2023 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0684 |
| Dec 2, 2021 | 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 2, 2021 | 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 |
| Dec 2, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. · F-0578 |
| Dec 2, 2021 | 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 2, 2021 | 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 |
| May 9, 2019 | 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. · F-0550 |
| May 9, 2019 | 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 |
| May 9, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' right to make their own choices about their daily lives, such as when to wake up, what to eat, or how to spend their time. · F-0561 |
| May 9, 2019 | 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 |
| May 9, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not give the resident or their representative written notice of how long it would hold the resident's bed during a hospital stay or approved leave. · F-0625 |
| May 9, 2019 | 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 |
| May 9, 2019 | 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 |
| May 9, 2019 | 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 |
| May 9, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline. · F-0688 |
| May 9, 2019 | 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 |
| May 9, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · F-0697 |
| May 9, 2019 | 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 |
| May 9, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service. · F-0802 |
| May 9, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| May 9, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives. · F-0806 |
| May 9, 2019 | 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 |
| May 9, 2019 | 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 |
| May 9, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests. · F-0925 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (5 → 10).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2019
All citations: 18
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2021
All citations: 5
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 11
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 2
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 18 | 0 | E |
| 2021 | 5 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 2 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 11 | 0 | E |
| 2026 | 2 | 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)
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: 3.70
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.35
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.40
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) | 3.70 | 4.31 | 3.95 | bottom 20% in California; bottom 47% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.35 | 0.61 | 0.69 | bottom 20% in California; bottom 15% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.40 | 3.90 | 3.50 | bottom 22% in California; top 48% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.15 | 0.51 | 0.48 | bottom 2% in California; bottom 5% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 33.7 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 42% in California; top 21% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 61.5 | 38.1 | 42.9 | bottom 14% in California; bottom 20% 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 4.12, RN 0.39, weekend 3.78.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.12 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 La Mesa 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apt, Frederick | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Hancock, Mark | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Jergensen, Joshua | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Mitchell, John | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Stewart, Jo Ann | Individual | Contracted Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2017 |
| Wilcox, Connor | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2023 |
All 6 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 Pacs Group — 274 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.
- La Paloma Healthcare Center — Oceanside, CA · overall 5/5
- Lakeport Post Acute — Lakeport, CA · overall 3/5
- Las Colinas Post Acute — Ontario, CA · overall 2/5
- Lincoln Meadows Care Center — Lincoln, CA · overall 5/5
- Lindsay Gardens Nursing & Rehabilitation — Lindsay, CA · overall 4/5
- Linwood Meadows Care Center — Visalia, CA · overall 3/5
- Loma Linda Post Acute — Loma Linda, CA · overall 4/5
- Lone Tree Post Acute — Antioch, CA · overall 4/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 273 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 show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
- "How do you care for residents with incontinence or catheters, and what do you do to prevent urinary tract infections?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "Can you give me examples of how you adjust daily routines and room setups to fit each resident's preferences?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "How do you prevent bedsores for residents who can't move themselves, and how often are at-risk residents repositioned?"
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 34% 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bella Vista Health Center | 1.0 mi | Lemon Grove, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Lemon Grove Care and Rehabilitation Center | 1.2 mi | Lemon Grove, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Amaya Springs Health Care Center | 1.8 mi | Spring Valley, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 4/5 | |
| Parkway Hills Nursing & Rehabilitation | 2.0 mi | La Mesa, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Arbor Hills Nursing Center | 2.0 mi | La Mesa, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| University Care Center | 2.3 mi | San Diego, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Jacob Healthcare Center | 2.3 mi | San Diego, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Brighton Place Spring Valley | 2.4 mi | Spring Valley, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Community Care Center | 2.4 mi | La Mesa, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Grossmont Gardens Healthcare Center | 2.5 mi | La Mesa, CA | —/5 | ||
| Country Manor la Mesa Healthcare Center | 2.6 mi | La Mesa, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Grossmont Hospital D/P SNF | 2.9 mi | La Mesa, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 |
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.
- 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
- Mission Hills Post Acute Care — San Diego, CA · overall 4/5
- Mount Miguel Covenant Village — Spring Valley, CA · overall 3/5
- National City Post Acute — National City, CA · overall 3/5
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 055488.