How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Loma Linda Post Acute
25383 Cole Street, Loma Linda, CA 92354 (opens Google Maps) · San Bernardino County · (909) 796-0235· 83 certified beds · avg 78 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: PACS GROUP (274 facilities, chain avg rating 2.9★)
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jul 3, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.54
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: 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 29 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not protect residents from misuse of their belongings or money — this is called misappropriation, and it includes theft or improper use of a resident's property or funds. · from a complaint F-0602
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
The facility did not coordinate resident assessments with the state's pre-admission screening program for mental illness and intellectual disabilities, or failed to refer residents for the special services they need. F-0644
View all 29 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 25, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from misuse of their belongings or money — this is called misappropriation, and it includes theft or improper use of a resident's property or funds. · from a complaint · F-0602 |
| Jul 3, 2025 | 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 |
| Jul 3, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not coordinate resident assessments with the state's pre-admission screening program for mental illness and intellectual disabilities, or failed to refer residents for the special services they need. · F-0644 |
| Jul 3, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not notify the appropriate authorities when a resident with a mental disorder or intellectual disability had a significant change in condition. · F-0646 |
| Jul 3, 2025 | 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 |
| Jul 3, 2025 | 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 |
| Jul 3, 2025 | 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 |
| Jul 3, 2025 | 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 |
| Jul 3, 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 |
| Jul 3, 2025 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not make its inspection results easy for residents to see, or made it hard for residents to contact advocacy agencies like the ombudsman. · F-0577 |
| May 29, 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 |
| Jun 20, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not enter each resident's assessment information into the required format and send it to the state within 7 days of completing the assessment, as the rules require. · F-0640 |
| Jun 4, 2024 | 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 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 7, 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 |
| Aug 3, 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 |
| Jan 10, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 10, 2023 | 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 |
| Jan 10, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Jan 10, 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 |
| Jan 10, 2023 | 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 |
| Jan 10, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not reassess a resident after a significant change in their condition, such as a sudden decline in health. A full new assessment is required when a resident's condition changes in a major way. · F-0637 |
| Jan 10, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not enter each resident's assessment information into the required format and send it to the state within 7 days of completing the assessment, as the rules require. · F-0640 |
| Jan 10, 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. · F-0656 |
| Jan 10, 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 |
| Jan 10, 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 |
| Jan 10, 2023 | 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 |
| Jan 10, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility used feeding tubes without a valid medical reason or the resident's agreement, or did not provide proper care to residents who have feeding tubes. · F-0693 |
| Jan 10, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not report COVID-19 data to residents and their families as required. Facilities must keep residents and families informed about COVID-19 cases. · F-0885 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (1 → 9).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 16
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 10
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 1
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 | 16 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 2 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 10 | 0 | F |
| 2026 | 1 | 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: 3.54
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.40
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.19
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) | 3.54 | 4.31 | 3.95 | bottom 12% in California; bottom 39% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.40 | 0.61 | 0.69 | bottom 33% in California; bottom 23% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.19 | 3.90 | 3.50 | bottom 10% in California; bottom 41% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.40 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 45% in California; top 48% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 46.4 | 36.7 | 45.8 | bottom 21% in California; bottom 46% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 70.0 | 38.1 | 42.9 | bottom 7% in California; bottom 12% 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 4.24, RN 0.48, weekend 3.82.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.24 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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Loma Linda Post Acute. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loma Linda Master Tenant LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 05/24/2023 |
| Providence Group NH, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 100% | 06/30/2023 |
| Apt, Frederick | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Dimaunahan, Joel | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/09/2024 |
| Jardine, Kenneth | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2024 |
| Jardine, Kenneth | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/02/2025 |
| Jergensen, Joshua | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Lords, Trevor | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/29/2023 |
| Lords, Trevor | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/23/2025 |
| Mitchell, John | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Pai, Shantharam | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/01/2023 |
| Pai, Shantharam | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/02/2025 |
| Providence Administrative Consulting Services INC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/30/2023 |
| Truist Bank | Organization | 5% or Greater Security Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/07/2023 |
All 14 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.
- Lone Tree Post Acute — Antioch, CA · overall 4/5
- Marin Post Acute — San Rafael, CA · overall 2/5abuse
- Marysville Post-Acute — Marysville, CA · overall 5/5
- McClure Post Acute — Oakland, CA · overall 5/5
- McKinley Park Care Center — Sacramento, CA · overall 4/5
- Medical Hill Healthcare Center — Oakland, CA · overall 5/5
- Mid-Town Oaks Post-Acute — Sacramento, CA · overall 3/5
- Mirage Post Acute — Lancaster, CA · overall 1/5SFF
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.
- "What safeguards do you have to protect residents' money and belongings, and what happens when something goes missing?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "How do you identify and arrange specialized services for residents with mental health conditions or disabilities?"
- "How do you coordinate with state agencies for residents with mental health conditions or intellectual disabilities?"
- "How do you help residents maintain their daily living skills, and how do you measure whether it's working?"
- "How do you monitor residents' weight and eating, and what happens when someone starts losing weight?"
- "How do you assess and manage residents' pain, especially for those who have trouble communicating?"
- "How do you coordinate and monitor care for residents who receive dialysis?"
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 46% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 14 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 59 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heritage Gardens Health Care Center | 0.3 mi | Loma Linda, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Asistencia Villa Healthcare Center | 1.2 mi | Redlands, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Totally Kids Rehabilitation Hospital - D/P SNF | 1.4 mi | Loma Linda, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| The Canyons Post-Acute | 2.4 mi | Colton, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Brookside Healthcare Center | 2.4 mi | Redlands, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Meadows Ridge Care Center | 2.9 mi | Colton, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Madison Grove Post Acute | 3.0 mi | Redlands, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Redlands Healthcare Center | 3.1 mi | Redlands, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Redlands Comm Hosp D/P SNF | 3.1 mi | Redlands, CA | ★★★★☆ | 5/5 | |
| Grand Terrace Health Care Center | 3.6 mi | Grand Terrace, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Plymouth Village | 4.6 mi | Redlands, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Highland Palms Healthcare Center | 5.0 mi | Highland, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in San Bernardino, CA — 55 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Medical Center Convalescent Hospital — San Bernardino, CA · overall 4/5
- Montclair Manor Care Center — Montclair, CA · overall 5/5
- Mountain View Post Acute — Barstow, CA · overall 5/5
- Mountains Community Hosp DP/SNF — Lake Arrowhead, CA · overall 4/5
- Ontario Grove Healthcare & Wellness Centre, LP — Ontario, CA · overall 3/5
- Ontario Healthcare Center — Ontario, CA · overall 5/5
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 055299.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).