How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Lodi Nursing & Rehabilitation
1334 S. Ham Lane, Lodi, CA 95242 (opens Google Maps) · San Joaquin County · (209) 334-3825· 74 certified beds · avg 69 residents/day · certified since Feb 14, 1977 · 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: ASPEN SKILLED HEALTHCARE (35 facilities, chain avg rating 3.7★)
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Mar 6, 2026
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.23
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: 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.
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 44 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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 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
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
View all 44 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jul 2, 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 |
| Mar 6, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 6, 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 |
| Mar 6, 2026 | 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 |
| Mar 6, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Mar 6, 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 |
| Mar 6, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide required paperwork or notices about a resident's needs, their right to appeal a transfer or discharge, or the facility's bed-hold policy (how long a bed is saved during a hospital stay). · F-0628 |
| Mar 6, 2026 | 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 6, 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 |
| Mar 6, 2026 | 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 |
| Mar 6, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide or arrange specialized rehabilitation services — such as physical, occupational, or speech therapy — for residents who needed them. · F-0825 |
| Mar 6, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Mar 6, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have a working call system — the button or cord residents use to summon help — in each resident's bathroom and bathing area. · F-0919 |
| Sep 8, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not give residents proper notice about what Medicare or Medicaid covers, or about charges the resident might owe for services that aren't covered. · from a complaint · F-0582 |
| Sep 8, 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. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Nov 1, 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 |
| Nov 1, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Nov 1, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service. · F-0802 |
| Nov 1, 2024 | 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 |
| Nov 1, 2024 | 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 |
| Nov 1, 2024 | 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 |
| Nov 1, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. · F-0908 |
| Nov 1, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Nov 1, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · F-0583 |
| Nov 1, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · F-0677 |
| Nov 1, 2024 | 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 |
| Nov 1, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Nov 1, 2024 | 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 |
| Nov 1, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not prepare and serve food in a form that meets each resident's individual needs — for example, chopped, pureed, or softened food for residents with chewing or swallowing problems. · F-0805 |
| Nov 1, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide residents with enough to drink, or with drinks matching their needs and preferences, to keep them properly hydrated. · F-0807 |
| Oct 13, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692 |
| Oct 13, 2023 | 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 |
| Oct 13, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Oct 13, 2023 | 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 |
| Oct 13, 2023 | 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 |
| Oct 13, 2023 | 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 |
| Oct 13, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Oct 13, 2023 | 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 |
| Oct 13, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0676 |
| Oct 13, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Oct 13, 2023 | 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 |
| Oct 13, 2023 | 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 |
| Oct 13, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · F-0921 |
| Sep 12, 2023 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (15 → 12).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 14
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 15
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 13
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 14 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 15 | 0 | F |
| 2025 | 2 | 0 | D |
| 2026 | 13 | 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: 4.23
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.43
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.86
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) | 4.23 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 42% in California; top 31% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.43 | 0.61 | 0.69 | bottom 39% in California; bottom 26% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.86 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 41% in California; top 27% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.37 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 49% in California; bottom 47% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 26.8 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 22% in California; top 9% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 42.9 | 38.1 | 42.9 | bottom 39% in California; bottom 49% 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 4.14, RN 0.42, weekend 3.78.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.14 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 4/5.
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: 4/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Lodi Nursing & Rehabilitation. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alhl, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 02/01/2016 |
| Bradshaw, Peter | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/07/2023 |
| Elsner, Eric | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2016 |
| Kirkwood, Jared | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2019 |
| Orgill, Craig | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2019 |
| Parti, Rajesh | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2016 |
| Parti, Shruty | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2016 |
| Paxman, Marcus | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2022 |
| Alhl, LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2016 |
| Alhl, LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2016 |
| Aspen Healthcare Services LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2023 |
| Bailey, Douglas | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2019 |
| Bailey, Douglas | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2019 |
| Bradshaw, Jeffrey | Individual | Individual Is an Owner, Partner or Trustee of Any ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/08/2026 |
| Bradshaw, Jeffrey | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2023 |
| Brady, Vern | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/10/2015 |
| Brady, Vern | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/10/2015 |
| Brady, Vern | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2023 |
| Case, Ryan | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2023 |
| East West Bank | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2016 |
Showing 20 of 32 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 12 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 Aspen Skilled Healthcare — 35 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.
- Marina Pointe Healthcare & Subacute — Culver City, CA · overall 3/5
- Mission Palms Healthcare Center — Westminster, CA · overall 3/5
- North Park Post-Acute — Tracy, CA · overall 4/5
- Oakland Heights Nursing and Rehabilitation — Oakland, CA · overall 5/5
- Ocean Pointe Healthcare Center — Santa Monica, CA · overall 2/5
- Pacific Heights Transitional Care Center — San Francisco, CA · overall 5/5
- Petaluma Post-Acute Rehabilitation — Petaluma, CA · overall 5/5
- Riverwood Health Care — Stockton, CA · overall 3/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 34 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.
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "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 your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
- "Can you give me examples of how you adjust daily routines and room setups to fit each resident's preferences?"
- "What written notices do we get before any transfer or discharge, and what is your bed-hold policy?"
- "How do you prevent bedsores for residents who can't move themselves, and how often are at-risk residents repositioned?"
- "How does your pharmacist review residents' medications, and how quickly can you fill new or urgent prescriptions?"
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 27% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 32 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 (12 closest of 19 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fairmont Rehabilitation Hospital | 0.4 mi | Lodi, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Arbor Rehabilitation & Nursing Center | 0.7 mi | Lodi, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Vienna Nursing and Rehabilitation Center | 1.8 mi | Lodi, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Lodi Creek Post Acute | 2.1 mi | Lodi, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Creekside Center | 6.2 mi | Stockton, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Clearwater Healthcare Center | 6.4 mi | Stockton, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Crystal Creek Post-Acute | 6.5 mi | Stockton, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Meadowood a Health and Rehabilitation Center | 7.0 mi | Stockton, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Delta Oaks Post Acute | 7.3 mi | Stockton, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Riverwood Health Care | 7.7 mi | Stockton, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Oak Grove Post Acute | 8.5 mi | Stockton, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Crestwood Manor - 104 | 9.0 mi | Stockton, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in San Joaquin, CA — 24 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Noble Care Center — Stockton, CA · overall 1/5abuse
- North Park Post-Acute — Tracy, CA · overall 4/5
- Tracy Nursing and Rehabilitation Center — Tracy, 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 555049.