California ›Redding

Marquis Care at Shasta

3550 Churn Creek Rd., Redding, CA 96002 · Shasta County · 180 certified beds · avg 125 residents/day · certified since Jul 14, 1970

Part of chain: MARQUIS COMPANIES (15 facilities, chain avg rating 4.3★)

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.84
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 (52)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Jun 24, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint
Jun 24, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Jun 24, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Mar 5, 2026F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service.
Mar 5, 2026F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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.
Mar 5, 2026F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Mar 5, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not make sure a transfer or discharge met the resident's needs and preferences, or did not properly prepare the resident to leave safely.
Mar 5, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Mar 5, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Mar 5, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility gave residents unnecessary mind-altering (psychotropic) medications, or used drugs in a way that restrained residents by dulling their ability to think, move, or function.
Mar 5, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required.
Mar 5, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Mar 5, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Mar 5, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure special medical diets — like low-sodium or diabetic diets — were properly ordered by the resident's doctor or managed by a qualified dietitian as state law allows.
Sep 12, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not treat residents with respect and dignity, or did not let them keep and use their own personal belongings. · from a complaint
Mar 3, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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. · from a complaint
Mar 3, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · from a complaint
Nov 1, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · from a complaint
Oct 10, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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.
Oct 10, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Oct 10, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives.
Oct 10, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Oct 10, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required.
Oct 10, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Oct 10, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.
Oct 10, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Oct 10, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
Oct 10, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Oct 10, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Oct 10, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration.
Oct 10, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service.
Oct 10, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Oct 10, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
Oct 10, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not arrange hospice services for a resident who needed them, or help the resident move to a facility that could arrange hospice. Hospice provides comfort-focused care for people nearing the end of life.
May 16, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint
Apr 3, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint
Aug 15, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep residents' medications free from unnecessary drugs. Residents should only take medicines they truly need, at the right dose, for a clear reason. · from a complaint
Jan 12, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Jan 12, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly.
Jan 12, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care.
Jan 12, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Jan 12, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service.
Jan 12, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service.
Jan 12, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Jan 12, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required.
Jan 12, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Jan 12, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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 12, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration.
Jan 12, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems.
Jan 12, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication.
Jan 12, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives.
Jan 12, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure special medical diets — like low-sodium or diabetic diets — were properly ordered by the resident's doctor or managed by a qualified dietitian as state law allows.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (16 → 11).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2023160F
2024190F
202530D
2026140F

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)

MeasureThis facilityCalifornia avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)4.844.313.95top 19% in California; top 16% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.420.610.69bottom 38% in California; bottom 26% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing4.293.903.50top 21% in California; top 16% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.290.510.48bottom 32% in California; bottom 30% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)52.836.745.8bottom 10% in California; bottom 30% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)43.838.142.9bottom 37% in California; bottom 46% in the U.S.

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 4.58, RN 0.40, weekend 4.05. Staffing rating: 3/5.

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: 3/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Fogg, PhillipIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest—03/25/1991
Marquis Companies I, INCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%12/01/2005
Fogg, PhillipIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2005
Fogg, StevenIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE10/15/2001
Fogg, StevenIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2005
Fogg, StevenIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2005
Fogg, ZacharyIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2018
Fogg, ZacharyIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2017
Stone, JanetIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE12/17/2018
Stone, JanetIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE12/17/2018
Tone, StaciIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE02/21/1994

Questions to ask on your visit

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

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Crestwood Wellness and Recovery Center0.5 miRedding, CA★★★☆☆2/5abuse
Copper Ridge Care Center1.3 miRedding, CA★★★★★5/5
River Valley Healthcare & Wellness Centre, LP2.4 miRedding, CA★★★★☆4/5
Redding Post Acute2.6 miRedding, CA★★★★☆4/5
Veterans Home of California - Redding3.5 miRedding, CA★★★★★4/5
Vibra Hospital of Northern California D/P SNF3.8 miRedding, CA★★★★★4/5
Quartz Hill Post Acute3.9 miRedding, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Oak River Rehab7.8 miAnderson, CA★★★★★5/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Redding →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 056222.