How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
La Sierra Care Center
2424 M Street, Merced, CA 95340 (opens Google Maps) · Merced County · (209) 723-4224· 68 certified beds · avg 66 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: CAMBRIDGE HEALTHCARE SERVICES (32 facilities, chain avg rating 2.5★)
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jan 23, 2026
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.11
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: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 3/5 · 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 employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. F-0801
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
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
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jan 23, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. · F-0801 |
| Jan 23, 2026 | 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 |
| Jan 23, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Jan 23, 2026 | 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 |
| Jan 23, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842 |
| Jan 23, 2026 | 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 |
| Jan 23, 2026 | 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 |
| Jan 23, 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 23, 2026 | 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 |
| Jan 23, 2026 | 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 |
| Jan 23, 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 19, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0655 |
| Apr 3, 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. · from a complaint · F-0658 |
| Oct 23, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide each resident with a nourishing, tasty, well-balanced diet that meets their daily nutritional and special dietary needs. · from a complaint · F-0800 |
| Aug 23, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804 |
| Aug 23, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Aug 23, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Aug 23, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Aug 23, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · F-0760 |
| Aug 23, 2024 | 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 |
| Aug 23, 2024 | 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 |
| Aug 23, 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 |
| Aug 23, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692 |
| Aug 23, 2024 | 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 |
| Aug 23, 2024 | 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 |
| Aug 23, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842 |
| Aug 23, 2024 | C · Potential for minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Oct 9, 2023 | 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, 2021 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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. · F-0868 |
| Apr 29, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not honor residents' right to form and take part in resident or family groups, such as a resident council. · F-0565 |
| Apr 29, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. · F-0679 |
| Apr 29, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| Apr 29, 2021 | 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, 2021 | 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 |
| Apr 29, 2021 | 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 |
| Apr 29, 2021 | 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 |
| Apr 29, 2021 | 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 |
| Apr 29, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide at least one adequately sized room for dining and activities, with good lighting, airflow, and furniture. · F-0920 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (13 → 11).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2021
All citations: 10
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 14
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 2
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 | 10 | 0 | F |
| 2023 | 1 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 14 | 0 | F |
| 2025 | 2 | 0 | D |
| 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: 4.11
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.54
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.82
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) | 4.11 | 4.31 | 3.95 | bottom 49% in California; top 35% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.54 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 40% in California; bottom 44% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.82 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 44% in California; top 29% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.39 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 46% in California; top 49% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 54.9 | 36.7 | 45.8 | bottom 7% in California; bottom 25% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 85.7 | 38.1 | 42.9 | bottom 2% in California; bottom 3% 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 3.93, RN 0.52, weekend 3.66.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.93 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.
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: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 1/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for La Sierra Care 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bering Properties LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 02/01/2007 |
| BH Alliance | Organization | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2006 |
| Crescent Facilities Operations LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 02/07/2007 |
| Ira & Rachel Smedra Family Irrevocable Gift Trust | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 02/01/2007 |
| Jenmax Enterprises LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 02/01/2007 |
| Jennifer Nurit Smedra Trust 1997 Trust | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 02/01/2007 |
| JK-CSH JV LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 11/01/2006 |
| Manhattan Five Partners LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 11/01/2006 |
| The Hyman & Betty Ingber Family Trust | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 10/10/2013 |
| The Jacob Wintner Trust | Organization | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2006 |
| The Wintner Living Trust Dated 7/08/1992 | Organization | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2007 |
| Win Win Enterprises, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 02/01/2007 |
| Wintner, Jacob | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2007 |
| 2424 M Street LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/15/2006 |
| Bretsch, Gregory | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/25/2019 |
| Bretsch, Gregory | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/25/2019 |
| Bretsch, Gregory | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/25/2019 |
| Butenko, Julie | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/24/2023 |
| Butenko, Julie | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/24/2023 |
| Cambridge Healthcare Services LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2014 |
Showing 20 of 43 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 23 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Cambridge Healthcare Services — 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.
- Laguna Hills Health and Rehabilitation Center — Laguna Hills, CA · overall 1/5
- Lassen Nursing & Rehabilitation Center — Susanville, CA · overall 2/5abuse
- Lynwood Post Acute Care Center — Lynwood, CA · overall 2/5
- Madera Rehabilitation & Nursing Center — Madera, CA · overall 1/5
- Merced Nursing & Rehabilitation Ctr — Merced, CA · overall 4/5
- Modesto Post Acute Center — Modesto, CA · overall 5/5
- Monrovia Gardens Healthcare Center — Monrovia, CA · overall 1/5
- Monte Vista Healthcare Center — Duarte, CA · overall 2/5
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.
- "Do you have a qualified dietician on staff, and how involved are they in each resident's nutrition plan?"
- "Who reviews your menus, and can I see this week's menu and join my family member for a meal?"
- "How do you track each resident's food allergies and preferences, and what happens if they don't like what's served?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "How do you keep residents' medical records accurate, complete, and secure?"
- "Can I see the actual room my family member would live in before we decide?"
- "Can you give me examples of how you adjust daily routines and room setups to fit each resident's preferences?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 55% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 43 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Merced Nursing & Rehabilitation Ctr | 0.1 mi | Merced, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Golden Merced Care Center | 0.3 mi | Merced, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Franciscan Post-Acute Care Center | 0.8 mi | Merced, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Merced Behavioral Center | 1.4 mi | Merced, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Anberry Post Acute | 3.0 mi | Merced, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Anberry Nursing and Rehabilitation Center | 7.1 mi | Atwater, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Grace Home INC. | 14.5 mi | Livingston, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Palms Care Center | 17.4 mi | Chowchilla, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Chowchilla Memorial Healthcare District | 17.4 mi | Chowchilla, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Merced, CA — 10 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Los Banos Post Acute — Los Banos, CA · overall 2/5
- New Bethany Skilled Nursing — Los Banos, CA · overall 2/5
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 055271.