McKinley Park Care Center

Name: McKinley Park Care Center
Address: 3700 H Street, Sacramento, CA, 95816, US
Telephone: 9164523592

3700 H Street, Sacramento, CA 95816 · Sacramento County · 86 certified beds · avg 77 residents/day · certified since Dec 17, 1979

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

3/5

Health inspection rating (on-site)

Serious findings on record

Fines, last 3 years

3.65

Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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

Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5

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 (54)

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
Jan 23, 2026	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.
Jan 23, 2026	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not update each resident's care assessment at least once every 3 months. These regular check-ins keep the resident's care plan matched to their current condition.
Jan 23, 2026	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not enter each resident's assessment information into the required format and send it to the state within 7 days of completing the assessment, as the rules require.
Jan 23, 2026	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The 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.
Jan 23, 2026	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.
Jan 23, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not fully assess residents on time — a complete assessment of health, abilities, and needs is required when a resident is first admitted and at least once every 12 months after that.
Jan 23, 2026	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.
Jan 23, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Jan 23, 2026	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 23, 2026	D · Potential for 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.
Jan 23, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Jan 23, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it.
Jan 23, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide care that took into account residents' past trauma or their cultural backgrounds. Care is supposed to be sensitive to what residents have lived through and where they come from.
Jan 23, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Jan 23, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Jan 23, 2026	B · Minimal risk, 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.
Aug 15, 2025	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint
Apr 16, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The 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
Jan 6, 2025	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
Dec 26, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The 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
Oct 4, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Oct 4, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Oct 4, 2024	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.
Oct 4, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Oct 4, 2024	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.
Oct 4, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not have a working program to monitor how antibiotics are used. Tracking antibiotic use helps make sure these drugs are given only when needed and remain effective.
Oct 4, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations.
Sep 9, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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
Sep 6, 2024	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. · from a complaint
Sep 6, 2024	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. · from a complaint
Dec 5, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · from a complaint
Nov 30, 2023	D · Potential for 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
Oct 13, 2023	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	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
Oct 13, 2023	D · Potential for 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
Oct 2, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide the social services residents need — such as counseling, help with adjustment, or connecting to outside resources — to achieve the best possible quality of life. · from a complaint
Nov 4, 2022	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.
Nov 4, 2022	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.
Nov 4, 2022	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.
Nov 4, 2022	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	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.
Nov 4, 2022	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors.
Nov 4, 2022	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The 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.
Nov 4, 2022	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.
Nov 4, 2022	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility allowed residents to lose the ability to do daily activities — like bathing, dressing, and eating — when there was no medical reason for the decline. Good care helps residents keep the abilities they have.
Nov 4, 2022	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle.
Nov 4, 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.
Nov 4, 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.
Nov 4, 2022	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Nov 4, 2022	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The 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.
Nov 4, 2022	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not fully assess residents on time — a complete assessment of health, abilities, and needs is required when a resident is first admitted and at least once every 12 months after that.
Nov 4, 2022	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Nov 4, 2022	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.
Nov 4, 2022	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide necessary behavioral health care and services — support for residents' mental and emotional wellbeing, including conditions like depression and anxiety.
Nov 4, 2022	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide special eating equipment and utensils — like adaptive cups or easy-grip silverware — for residents who need them, along with appropriate help at meals.
Nov 4, 2022	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.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (7 → 16).

Year	Citations	Worst severity that year
2022	19	F
2023	5	F
2024	11	E
2025	3	E
2026	16	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)	3.65	4.31	3.95	bottom 18% in California; bottom 44% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours	0.43	0.61	0.69	bottom 40% in California; bottom 27% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing	3.22	3.90	3.50	bottom 12% in California; bottom 43% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)	0.29	0.51	0.48	bottom 31% in California; bottom 29% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)	30.9	36.7	45.8	top 32% in California; top 16% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)	22.2	38.1	42.9	top 23% in California; top 17% 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 3.81, RN 0.45, weekend 3.36. 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: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / manager	Type	Role	Stake	Since
Bay Bridge Capital Partners, LLC	Organization	5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest	100%	08/15/2014
Hudson River Opco LLC	Organization	5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest	100%	10/01/2019
Apt, Frederick	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2024
Espinosa, Raul	Individual	W-2 Managing Employee	NOT APPLICABLE	04/22/2024
Jergensen, Joshua	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2024
Mitchell, John	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2024
Sandhu, Harkesh	Individual	Contracted Managing Employee	NOT APPLICABLE	05/01/2016

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 did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
"How do you track that every resident's quarterly assessment happens on time?"
"How do you make sure resident assessments are completed and submitted to the state on time?"
"Who oversees residents' therapeutic diets, and how do the doctor and dietitian work together on them?"
"Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
"How soon after admission is a full assessment completed, and how are the findings shared with the family?"
"If my family member's health suddenly changes, how quickly do you reassess them and update their care?"
"Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
"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
Saylor Lane Healthcare Center	0.4 mi	Sacramento, CA	★★★★☆	3/5
Mid-Town Oaks Post-Acute	0.5 mi	Sacramento, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5
University Post-Acute Rehab	1.0 mi	Sacramento, CA	★★★★★	4/5
Sherwood Healthcare Center	1.2 mi	Sacramento, CA	★★★★★	4/5
Advanced Health Care of Sacramento	1.8 mi	Sacramento, CA	★★★★★	4/5
Pioneer House	2.2 mi	Sacramento, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5	abuse
Asbury Park Nursing and Rehabilitation Center	2.7 mi	Sacramento, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5
Woodside Healthcare Center	2.8 mi	Sacramento, CA	★★★★★	4/5
Gramercy Court	3.9 mi	Sacramento, CA	★★★★☆	2/5	abuse
Bridgewood Post Acute	4.1 mi	Sacramento, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5	abuse
Cedarwood Post Acute	4.3 mi	Sacramento, CA	★★★☆☆	3/5
River Bend Nursing Center	4.3 mi	West Sacramento, CA	★★★☆☆	3/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Sacramento →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555122.

The Care File

Visit checklist — McKinley Park Care Center

3700 H Street, Sacramento, CA 95816 · 9164523592

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

Questions for the administrator:

☐ "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
☐ "How do you track that every resident's quarterly assessment happens on time?"
☐ "How do you make sure resident assessments are completed and submitted to the state on time?"
☐ "Who oversees residents' therapeutic diets, and how do the doctor and dietitian work together on them?"
☐ "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
☐ "How soon after admission is a full assessment completed, and how are the findings shared with the family?"
☐ "If my family member's health suddenly changes, how quickly do you reassess them and update their care?"
☐ "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
☐ "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 555122 · Verify at medicare.gov/care-compare · Printed from The Care File (thecarefile.com)