How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
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
2
Serious findings on record
most recent Mar 15, 2022
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.05
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.
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.
▲ 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.
▲ 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.
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: 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.
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
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
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).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2019
All citations: 15
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2022
All citations: 16
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2023
All citations: 4
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 7
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 5
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 5
Serious citations (G–L): 0
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 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)
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: 4.05
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.66
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.65
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) | 4.05 | 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
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 | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 056116.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).