Los Altos Post-Acute

809 Fremont Avenue, Los Altos, CA 94024 (opens Google Maps) · Santa Clara County · (650) 941-5255· 152 certified beds · avg 147 residents/day · certified since Dec 31, 1971 · 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: COVENANT CARE (12 facilities, chain avg rating 2.8★)

3/5

Health inspection rating (on-site)

inspected Feb 27, 2025

Serious findings on record

most recent Mar 15, 2022

Fines, last 3 years

4.05

Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Mar 15, 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): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: Apr 14, 2022 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Nov 22, 2019 · 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.

Corrected: Jan 2, 2020 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 52 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

Jun 29, 2026D · 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
Jun 23, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
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
Jun 16, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility did not honor residents' individual preferences, choices, values, and beliefs in their daily life and care. · from a complaint F-0675

View all 52 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 29, 2026	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
Jun 23, 2026	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	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
Jun 16, 2026	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not honor residents' individual preferences, choices, values, and beliefs in their daily life and care. · from a complaint · F-0675
Feb 25, 2026	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility was not managed in a way that uses its money, staff, and resources effectively and efficiently to care for residents. · from a complaint · F-0835
Jan 23, 2026	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, 2025	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
Mar 5, 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
Feb 27, 2025	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
Feb 27, 2025	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
Jan 14, 2025	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. · from a complaint · F-0880
Sep 25, 2024	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 25, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not give residents (and their representatives and the ombudsman, a state advocate for residents) proper advance notice before a transfer or discharge, including information about their right to appeal. · from a complaint · F-0623
Aug 28, 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
Jun 3, 2024	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
Jun 3, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · from a complaint · F-0610
Jan 18, 2024	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
Jan 11, 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 7, 2023	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not have policies on smoking. · from a complaint · F-0926
Oct 26, 2023	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. · from a complaint · F-0842
Oct 26, 2023	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. · from a complaint · F-0919
Sep 21, 2023	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
Mar 15, 2022	▲ G · Actual 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 15, 2022	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
Mar 15, 2022	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
Mar 15, 2022	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684
Mar 15, 2022	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	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 15, 2022	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	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 15, 2022	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 15, 2022	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
Mar 15, 2022	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 15, 2022	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
Mar 15, 2022	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
Mar 15, 2022	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
Mar 15, 2022	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 15, 2022	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 15, 2022	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 15, 2022	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations. · F-0883
Nov 22, 2019	▲ G · Actual 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
Nov 22, 2019	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
Nov 22, 2019	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 22, 2019	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 22, 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
Nov 22, 2019	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. · F-0655
Nov 22, 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
Nov 22, 2019	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
Nov 22, 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
Nov 22, 2019	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not safely and appropriately administer IV fluids (fluids given through a vein) for residents who needed them. · F-0694
Nov 22, 2019	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
Nov 22, 2019	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
Nov 22, 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
Nov 22, 2019	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not provide or obtain laboratory tests when a doctor ordered them, or did not promptly report the results back to the doctor who ordered them. · F-0773
Nov 22, 2019	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not provide each resident with a nourishing, tasty, well-balanced diet that meets their daily nutritional and special dietary needs. · F-0800

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (16 → 2).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01

All citationsSerious citations (G–L)

2019

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

Year	Citations	Serious (G–L)	Worst severity that year
2019	15	1	G ▲
2022	16	1	G ▲
2023	4	0	D
2024	7	0	D
2025	5	0	E
2026	5	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)

How to file a complaint about care →

No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

What these staffing numbers mean →

Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01

This facilityCalifornia averageU.S. average

Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)

4.05

4.31

3.95

Registered Nurse hours

0.66

0.61

0.69

Weekend total nurse staffing

3.65

3.90

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)	4.05	4.31	3.95	bottom 46% in California; top 37% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours	0.66	0.61	0.69	top 27% in California; top 41% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing	3.65	3.90	3.50	bottom 43% in California; top 35% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)	0.47	0.51	0.48	top 35% in California; top 37% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)	52.4	36.7	45.8	bottom 10% in California; bottom 31% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)	60.7	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 4.15, RN 0.67, weekend 3.74.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.15 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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 2/5

Costs & payment

Price evidence · separate from quality

No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Los Altos 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
Centre Capital Investors V, LP	Organization	5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest	—	07/17/2008
Centre Covenant Purchaser (b), LLC	Organization	5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest	—	07/17/2008
Centre Covenant Purchaser (q), LLC	Organization	5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest	—	07/17/2008
Centre Covenant Purchaser (s), LLC	Organization	5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest	—	12/19/2008
Centre V Secondary Fund, L.P.	Organization	5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest	—	07/17/2008
Covenant Care California, LLC	Organization	5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest	—	07/17/2008
Covenant Care, LLC	Organization	5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest	—	07/17/2008
Covenant Holdco, LLC	Organization	5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest	—	07/17/2008
Covenant Subco, LLC	Organization	5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest	—	07/17/2008
Evans, Mary	Individual	5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest	—	07/17/2008
Levin, Robert	Individual	5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest	—	07/17/2008
Sims, Christine	Individual	5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest	—	07/17/2008
State Treasurer of Mich Custodian of Public School Empl RTMNT Systems	Organization	5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest	—	12/19/2008
Stockwell Fund II LP	Organization	5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest	—	12/19/2008
Torok, Andrew	Individual	5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest	—	07/17/2008
Ashley, Dava	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	05/17/2018
Ashley, Dava	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	03/26/2018
Carney, Kevin	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	11/01/2013
Evans, Mary	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	11/01/2013
Evans, Mary	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	04/14/2006

Showing 20 of 29 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 9 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 Covenant Care — 12 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.

Pacific Coast Manor — Capitola, CA · overall 5/5
Pacific Gardens Nursing and Rehabilitation Center — Fresno, CA · overall 3/5
Palo Alto Post-Acute — Palo Alto, CA · overall 4/5
Shoreline Care Center — Oxnard, CA · overall 2/5
Silver Hills Health Care Center — Las Vegas, NV · overall 2/5
Silver Ridge Healthcare Center — Las Vegas, NV · overall 4/5
Buena Vista Care Center — Santa Barbara, CA · overall 2/5
Camino Ridge Post-Acute — Mountain View, CA · overall 1/5

Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 11 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.

Questions to ask on your visit

Full visit checklist →

Print visit checklist

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

"What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
"How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
"How do you learn each resident's personal preferences and make sure staff actually follow them?"
"What were the findings behind this administration citation, and what has leadership changed since?"
"Who completes resident assessments here, and how do you check them for accuracy?"
"How do you screen new residents for mental health and disability-related needs, and how do you provide the specialized services they require?"
"Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
"Before any service that isn't covered by Medicare or Medicaid, how will you notify us and get our agreement?"

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 52% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
"The ownership record on file lists 29 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 62 within 20 miles)

Facility	Distance	City	Overall	Inspection
Mountain View Healthcare Center	0.9 mi	Mountain View, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5
Villa Siena	1.2 mi	Mountain View, CA	★☆☆☆☆	3/5
Health Care Ctr at the Forum at Rancho San Antonio	1.2 mi	Cupertino, CA	★★★★☆	2/5
Camino Ridge Post-Acute	1.3 mi	Mountain View, CA	★☆☆☆☆	1/5
Sunnyvale Post-Acute Center	1.7 mi	Sunnyvale, CA	★☆☆☆☆	1/5
Idylwood Care Center	1.7 mi	Sunnyvale, CA	★★★★★	4/5
Sunny View Manor	2.5 mi	Cupertino, CA	★★★★★	4/5
Cupertino Healthcare & Wellness Center	2.9 mi	Cupertino, CA	★★★☆☆	3/5
The Terraces at Los Altos Health Facility	3.0 mi	Los Altos, CA	★★★★☆	3/5
Sunnyvale Gardens Post Acute	3.3 mi	Sunnyvale, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5
Cedar Crest Nursing and Rehabilitation Center	3.9 mi	Sunnyvale, CA	★★★★☆	3/5
Westwood Post Acute	6.5 mi	San Jose, CA	★★☆☆☆	1/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

Other facilities in the same county

CMS records place this facility in Santa Clara, CA — 50 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.

Milpitas Care Center — Milpitas, CA · overall 2/5
Mission de la Casa — San Jose, CA · overall 2/5
Morgan Hill Healthcare Center — Morgan Hill, CA · overall 4/5
O'Connor Hospital D/P SNF — San Jose, CA · overall 5/5
Pacific Hills Post Acute — Morgan Hill, CA · overall 4/5
Palo Alto Post-Acute — Palo Alto, CA · overall 4/5
Plum Tree Care Center — San Jose, CA · overall 5/5

Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.

All facilities in Los Altos →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 056116.