Marysville Post-Acute

Name: Marysville Post-Acute
Address: 1617 RAMIREZ STREET, Marysville, CA, 95901, US
Telephone: 5307427311

1617 Ramirez Street, Marysville, CA 95901 · Yuba County · 86 certified beds · avg 83 residents/day · certified since Nov 7, 1996

Part of chain: PACS GROUP (274 facilities, chain avg rating 2.9★)

4/5

Health inspection rating (on-site)

Serious findings on record

Fines, last 3 years

3.86

Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 5/5

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.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Oct 9, 2024 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Oct 25, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (39)

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
Jun 25, 2025	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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. · from a complaint
Jun 25, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The 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. · from a complaint
Jun 25, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · from a complaint
Apr 3, 2025	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not give the resident or their representative written notice of how long it would hold the resident's bed during a hospital stay or approved leave.
Apr 3, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Apr 3, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives.
Mar 21, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The 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 21, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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
Oct 9, 2024	▲ G · Actual harm, one-off	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
Jul 24, 2024	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. · from a complaint
May 14, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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. · from a complaint
Nov 16, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility was not managed in a way that uses its money, staff, and resources effectively and efficiently to care for residents.
Nov 16, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them.
Nov 16, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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
Nov 16, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Nov 16, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
Nov 16, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The 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. · from a complaint
Nov 16, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not post its nurse staffing information every day. Nursing homes must publicly display how many nurses and aides are on duty each day.
Nov 16, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.
Nov 7, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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. · from a complaint
Nov 7, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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
Nov 7, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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
Nov 7, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. · from a complaint
Aug 18, 2022	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The facility was not managed in a way that uses its money, staff, and resources effectively and efficiently to care for residents.
Aug 18, 2022	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The 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.
Aug 18, 2022	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not honor residents' right to form and take part in resident or family groups, such as a resident council.
Aug 18, 2022	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Aug 18, 2022	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it.
Aug 18, 2022	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The 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.
Aug 18, 2022	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident.
Aug 18, 2022	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.
Aug 18, 2022	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Aug 18, 2022	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 18, 2022	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Aug 18, 2022	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives.
Aug 18, 2022	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The 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.
Aug 18, 2022	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not have a written plan describing how it runs its quality improvement program — the ongoing process of finding problems in care and fixing them.
Aug 18, 2022	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them.
Aug 18, 2022	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (8 → 3).

Year	Citations	Serious (G–L)	Worst severity that year
2022	16	0	F
2023	12	0	E
2024	3	1	G ▲
2025	8	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)

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)	3.86	4.31	3.95	bottom 31% in California; top 46% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours	0.66	0.61	0.69	top 28% in California; top 41% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing	3.48	3.90	3.50	bottom 29% in California; top 43% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)	0.49	0.51	0.48	top 32% in California; top 34% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)	35.2	36.7	45.8	top 47% in California; top 25% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)	11.1	38.1	42.9	top 6% in California; top 4% 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 3.90, RN 0.66, weekend 3.51. Staffing rating: 4/5.

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: 5/5 · 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
Apt, Frederick	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2024
Comer, Cameron	Individual	W-2 Managing Employee	NOT APPLICABLE	04/23/2023
Hancock, Mark	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2024
Jergensen, Joshua	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2024
Mitchell, John	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2024
Vemulapalli, Shailaja	Individual	Contracted Managing Employee	NOT APPLICABLE	08/09/2022

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 prevent bedsores for residents who can't move themselves, and how often are at-risk residents repositioned?"
"Before a resident is discharged or transferred, how do you make sure the new place can actually meet their needs?"
"Who completes resident assessments here, and how do you check them for accuracy?"
"If my family member goes to the hospital, how long will you hold their bed, and will we get that in writing?"
"If my family member is able to manage their own medications, would you allow it, and how is that decided?"
"How do you train staff to treat residents with dignity, and how do you protect residents' personal belongings?"
"How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
"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
Bridgeview Post Acute	2.1 mi	Yuba City, CA	★★☆☆☆	1/5	abuse
Yuba City Post Acute	2.2 mi	Yuba City, CA	★★★★★	4/5
Fountains, the	2.7 mi	Yuba City, CA	★★★★★	4/5
River Valley Care Center	8.6 mi	Live Oak, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5
Gridley Post Acute	15.9 mi	Gridley, CA	★★★★☆	4/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Marysville →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555682.

The Care File

Visit checklist — Marysville Post-Acute

1617 Ramirez Street, Marysville, CA 95901 · 5307427311

Health inspection rating 4/5 · CMS overall 5/5· Fines (3y): $0

Most serious findings on record:

▲ Oct 9, 2024 (F-0689, Actual harm, one-off): The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Questions for the administrator:

☐ "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
☐ "How do you prevent bedsores for residents who can't move themselves, and how often are at-risk residents repositioned?"
☐ "Before a resident is discharged or transferred, how do you make sure the new place can actually meet their needs?"
☐ "Who completes resident assessments here, and how do you check them for accuracy?"
☐ "If my family member goes to the hospital, how long will you hold their bed, and will we get that in writing?"
☐ "If my family member is able to manage their own medications, would you allow it, and how is that decided?"
☐ "How do you train staff to treat residents with dignity, and how do you protect residents' personal belongings?"
☐ "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
☐ "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?"

While you're there, notice:

☐ Smell and cleanliness in hallways, not just the lobby
☐ How staff speak to residents; call lights answered promptly
☐ Residents up, dressed, and engaged (visit mealtimes and a weekend if you can)

Data: CMS Provider Data Catalog, version 2026-08-01 · CCN 555682 · Verify at medicare.gov/care-compare · Printed from The Care File (thecarefile.com)