Los Banos Post Acute
931 Idaho Ave., Los Banos, CA 93635 · Merced County · 59 certified beds · avg 53 residents/day · certified since Jul 1, 1976
Part of chain: KALESTA HEALTHCARE GROUP (19 facilities, chain avg rating 2.4★)
2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.53
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5
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 self-reported quality measures.
All citations in the current public record (24)
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Aug 8, 2025 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not have a registered nurse on duty at least 8 hours a day, or did not have a registered nurse serving full-time as director of nursing. |
| Aug 8, 2025 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. |
| Aug 8, 2025 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service. |
| Aug 8, 2025 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. |
| Aug 8, 2025 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. |
| Aug 8, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Aug 8, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. |
| Aug 8, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Aug 8, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. |
| Aug 8, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide proper foot care for residents. Foot care includes routine care like nail trimming and attention to foot problems, which matter greatly for older adults. |
| Aug 8, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility used bed rails without first trying safer alternatives, or without assessing the resident's safety risk, discussing the risks and benefits with the resident or family, getting consent, and installing the rails correctly. |
| Aug 8, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Aug 8, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. |
| Aug 8, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Aug 8, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Jan 6, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Aug 12, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility transferred or discharged a resident without a valid reason, or failed to provide the required documentation and information when moving a resident out. · from a complaint |
| Aug 1, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. |
| Aug 1, 2024 | C · Minimal risk, facility-wide | The facility did not conduct and document a facility-wide assessment of what staff, supplies, and resources it needs to care for its residents properly — during everyday operations, nights, weekends, and emergencies. |
| Nov 8, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint |
| Sep 20, 2019 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not conduct and document a facility-wide assessment of what staff, supplies, and resources it needs to care for its residents properly — during everyday operations, nights, weekends, and emergencies. |
| Sep 20, 2019 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. |
| Sep 20, 2019 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms. |
| Sep 20, 2019 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (2 → 15).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 4 | 0 | F |
| 2023 | 1 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 3 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 16 | 0 | F |
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)
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
| Measure | This facility | California avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 3.53 | 4.31 | 3.95 | bottom 11% in California; bottom 38% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.27 | 0.61 | 0.69 | bottom 8% in California; bottom 7% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.14 | 3.90 | 3.50 | bottom 9% in California; bottom 38% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.20 | 0.51 | 0.48 | bottom 11% in California; bottom 12% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 36.7 | 36.7 | 45.8 | bottom 48% in California; top 28% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 0.0 | 38.1 | 42.9 | — |
Hours are per resident per day, 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 4.06, RN 0.31, weekend 3.60. Staffing rating: 2/5.
Self-reported quality measures
Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.
Quality measures rating: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5
Who owns this facility
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clawson, Scott | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 48% | 11/01/2021 |
| Clawson, Scott | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2021 |
| Kalesta Healthcare Group, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 11/01/2021 |
| Williams, Ryan | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 48% | 11/01/2021 |
| 931 Idaho Avenue, LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2021 |
| Cardoso, Samuel | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/17/2025 |
| Chen, Kai Shin | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2021 |
| Chen, Kai Shin | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2021 |
| Clawson, Scott | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2021 |
| Devireddy, Karthikeya | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2021 |
| Devireddy, Karthikeya | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2021 |
| Dover Dirlam, Barbara | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2021 |
| Fields, Domonique | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2021 |
| Fields, Domonique | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2021 |
| Flake, Ethan | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/07/2024 |
| Flake, Ethan | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/07/2024 |
| Gomes, Tanya | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2021 |
| Hinkle, Cortney | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/09/2024 |
| Hinkle, Cortney | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/09/2024 |
| Jones, Steven | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/01/2024 |
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "How many hours a day is a registered nurse physically in the building, including weekends?"
- "Do you have a qualified dietician on staff, and how involved are they in each resident's nutrition plan?"
- "How is your kitchen staffed, and have meals ever been delayed because of staffing?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "How does your quality committee work, and can you share an example of a problem it identified and fixed?"
- "Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
- "How do you explain health changes and treatment options to residents and their families?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
- "Can I see the results and plan of correction from your most recent state inspection?"
Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New Bethany Skilled Nursing | 2.0 mi | Los Banos, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| San Luis Care Center | 20.0 mi | Newman, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 |
Compare this facility with the 2 closest →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 055028.