How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Medical Center Convalescent Hospital
467 E Gilbert St, San Bernardino, CA 92404 (opens Google Maps) · San Bernardino County · (909) 884-4781· 99 certified beds · avg 77 residents/day · certified since Apr 11, 1974 · 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: EVA CARE GROUP (9 facilities, chain avg rating 3.4★)
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Feb 26, 2026
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.42
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: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5 · 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.
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 34 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
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
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. F-0558
View all 34 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Feb 26, 2026 | 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 |
| Feb 26, 2026 | 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 |
| Feb 26, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0558 |
| Feb 26, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make its inspection results easy for residents to see, or made it hard for residents to contact advocacy agencies like the ombudsman. · F-0577 |
| Feb 26, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. · F-0578 |
| Feb 26, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not coordinate resident assessments with the state's pre-admission screening program for mental illness and intellectual disabilities, or failed to refer residents for the special services they need. · F-0644 |
| Feb 26, 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. · F-0684 |
| Feb 26, 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. · F-0689 |
| Feb 26, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. · F-0690 |
| Feb 26, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Feb 26, 2026 | 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 |
| Feb 26, 2026 | 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. · F-0842 |
| Feb 6, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Feb 6, 2025 | 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 |
| Feb 6, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804 |
| Feb 6, 2025 | 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 |
| Sep 10, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| May 5, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. · F-0801 |
| May 5, 2023 | 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 |
| May 5, 2023 | 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 |
| May 5, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| May 5, 2023 | 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 |
| May 5, 2023 | 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. · F-0684 |
| May 5, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. · F-0690 |
| May 5, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692 |
| May 5, 2023 | 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 |
| May 5, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| May 5, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0756 |
| May 5, 2023 | 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 |
| May 5, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service. · F-0802 |
| May 5, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0849 |
| May 5, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not regularly inspect bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails for safety, or the rails and mattresses were not attached safely to the frames. · F-0909 |
| May 5, 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. · F-0919 |
| May 5, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests. · F-0925 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (4 → 12).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 17
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 4
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 12
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 17 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 1 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 4 | 0 | F |
| 2026 | 12 | 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)
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: 4.42
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.72
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 4.07
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) | 4.42 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 33% in California; top 25% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.72 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 22% in California; top 34% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.07 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 29% in California; top 21% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.64 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 18% in California; top 20% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 28.4 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 25% in California; top 12% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 35.7 | 38.1 | 42.9 | top 48% in California; top 39% 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 4.06, RN 0.66, weekend 3.74.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.06 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 4/5.
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 Medical Center Convalescent Hospital. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chen, Jenq | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 50% | 03/01/2009 |
| Chen, Tze-Yun | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | — | 03/01/2009 |
| Chen, Jenq | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2009 |
| Diolosa, Francisco | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/20/2021 |
| Diolosa, Francisco | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/20/2021 |
| Hage, Jean | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2021 |
| Hage, Jean | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2021 |
| Padama, John | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/02/2017 |
All 8 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Eva Care Group — 9 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.
- Montclair Manor Care Center — Montclair, CA · overall 5/5
- Cedar Pine Post Acute — Pasadena, CA · overall 2/5abuse
- Empress Care Center, LLC — San Jose, CA · overall 4/5
- Greenfield Care Center of Fairfield — Fairfield, CA · overall —/5SFF
- Greenfield Care Center of Fillmore, LLC — Fillmore, CA · overall 5/5
- Greenfield Care Center of Fullerton, LLC — Fullerton, CA · overall 5/5
- Greenfield Care Center of South Gate — South Gate, CA · overall 1/5
- Kit Carson Nursing & Rehabilitation Center — Jackson, CA · overall 1/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking.
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?"
- "If my family member is able to manage their own medications, would you allow it, and how is that decided?"
- "Can you give me examples of how you adjust daily routines and room setups to fit each resident's preferences?"
- "Where do you post your latest state inspection results and the ombudsman's contact information?"
- "How do you record and honor each resident's treatment wishes and advance directives, and how do staff know about them?"
- "How do you identify and arrange specialized services for residents with mental health conditions or disabilities?"
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 28% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (12 closest of 55 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arrowhead Springs Healthcare | 0.2 mi | San Bernardino, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Valley Healthcare Center | 0.2 mi | San Bernardino, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Waterman Canyon Post Acute | 0.4 mi | San Bernardino, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Haven Post Acute | 1.5 mi | San Bernardino, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Del Rosa Villa | 1.8 mi | San Bernardino, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Community Convalescent Center of San Bernardino | 2.3 mi | San Bernardino, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Community Hospital of San Bernardino DP SNF | 2.3 mi | San Bernardino, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Arrowhead Healthcare Center, LLC | 2.9 mi | San Bernardino, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Sierra Vista | 2.9 mi | Highland, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Shandin Hills Behavior Therapy Center | 3.5 mi | San Bernardino, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Hillcrest Nursing Home | 3.7 mi | San Bernardino, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Highland Palms Healthcare Center | 4.1 mi | Highland, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in San Bernardino, CA — 55 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Montclair Manor Care Center — Montclair, CA · overall 5/5
- Mountain View Post Acute — Barstow, CA · overall 5/5
- Mountains Community Hosp DP/SNF — Lake Arrowhead, CA · overall 4/5
- Ontario Grove Healthcare & Wellness Centre, LP — Ontario, CA · overall 3/5
- Ontario Healthcare Center — Ontario, CA · overall 5/5
- Plymouth Village — Redlands, CA · overall 4/5
- Rancho Mesa Care Center — Alta Loma, CA · overall 4/5
- Redlands Comm Hosp D/P SNF — Redlands, CA · overall 4/5
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 056436.