Mercy Retirement & Care Center

Name: Mercy Retirement & Care Center
Address: 3431 FOOTHILL BLVD., Oakland, CA, 94601, US
Telephone: 5105348540

3431 Foothill Blvd., Oakland, CA 94601 · Alameda County · 59 certified beds · avg 51 residents/day · certified since Jan 17, 1985

4/5

Health inspection rating (on-site)

Serious findings on record

$16,675

Fines, last 3 years

4.71

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: 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.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Sep 27, 2024 · F-0684 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.

Why it matters: Care that strays from doctor's orders or ignores the resident's wishes can lead to declining health and avoidable harm.

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)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Jun 9, 2023 · F-0689

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: Jul 21, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Jun 9, 2023 · F-0692

The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration.

Why it matters: Malnutrition and dehydration can quickly weaken a resident and lead to serious complications.

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: Jul 21, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (29)

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
Mar 27, 2026	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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
Sep 23, 2025	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. · from a complaint
Aug 26, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility was not managed in a way that uses its money, staff, and resources effectively and efficiently to care for residents. · from a complaint
Apr 24, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · from a complaint
Apr 24, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The 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
Feb 13, 2025	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.
Feb 13, 2025	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.
Feb 13, 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.
Feb 13, 2025	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.
Feb 13, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Feb 13, 2025	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.
Feb 13, 2025	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.
Feb 13, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not honor residents' right to make their own choices about their daily lives, such as when to wake up, what to eat, or how to spend their time. · from a complaint
Sep 27, 2024	▲ G · Actual 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 3, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not let a resident return after a hospital stay or approved leave that lasted longer than the facility's bed-hold policy allowed. Residents generally have the right to come back to the next available bed. · from a complaint
Jun 9, 2023	▲ 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.
Jun 9, 2023	▲ G · Actual harm, one-off	The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration.
Jun 9, 2023	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.
Jun 9, 2023	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.
Jun 9, 2023	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.
Jun 9, 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.
Jun 9, 2023	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.
Jun 9, 2023	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.
Jun 9, 2023	C · Minimal risk, facility-wide	The facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records.
Feb 6, 2020	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.
Feb 6, 2020	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.
Feb 6, 2020	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.
Feb 6, 2020	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Feb 6, 2020	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (9 → 7).

Year	Citations	Serious (G–L)	Worst severity that year
2020	5	0	E
2023	10	2	G ▲
2024	1	1	G ▲
2025	12	0	E
2026	1	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)

1 fine totaling $16,675.

Date	Type	Amount / length
Sep 27, 2024	Fine	$16,675

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)	4.71	4.31	3.95	top 21% in California; top 18% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours	0.90	0.61	0.69	top 14% in California; top 21% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing	4.17	3.90	3.50	top 25% in California; top 18% 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 (%)	0.0	36.7	45.8	—
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 4.68, RN 0.90, weekend 4.15. 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: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5

Who owns this facility

Non profit - Corporation

Owner / manager	Type	Role	Stake	Since
Elder Care Alliance	Organization	5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest	100%	01/17/1985
Balley, Marjorie	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	11/09/2013
Benham-Dwyer, Raelynne	Individual	W-2 Managing Employee	NOT APPLICABLE	08/11/2022
Evitts, Robin	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	05/06/2019
Foreman, Nicole	Individual	W-2 Managing Employee	NOT APPLICABLE	09/16/2019
Iverson, Adriene	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	04/01/2015
Joglekar, Rahul	Individual	Corporate Director	NOT APPLICABLE	05/19/2009
Katzmann, Lynn	Individual	Corporate Director	NOT APPLICABLE	12/01/2012
Krueger, Mark	Individual	W-2 Managing Employee	NOT APPLICABLE	11/09/2016
Lyons, Blaine	Individual	W-2 Managing Employee	NOT APPLICABLE	05/11/2017
McGrath, Geraldine	Individual	Corporate Director	NOT APPLICABLE	12/01/2020
Whelan, Christine	Individual	Corporate Director	NOT APPLICABLE	12/01/2011

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 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?"
"How do you monitor residents' weight and eating, and what happens when someone starts losing weight?"
"Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
"What were the findings behind this administration citation, and what has leadership changed since?"
"What specific steps do you take to prevent abuse and neglect, and how are staff trained on them?"
"When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
"What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
"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
Garfield Neurobehavioral Center	0.6 mi	Oakland, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5	abuse
Fruitvale Healthcare Center	0.6 mi	Oakland, CA	★★★★★	5/5
Bellaken Skilled Nursing Center	0.7 mi	Oakland, CA	★★★★★	5/5
Bay Marina Post Acute	0.8 mi	Oakland, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5
Oakland Heights Nursing and Rehabilitation	1.0 mi	Oakland, CA	★★★★★	4/5
Excell Health Care Center	1.1 mi	Oakland, CA	★★★★★	5/5
Redwood Healthcare Center LLC	1.1 mi	Oakland, CA	★★★★☆	4/5
Princeton Manor Healthcare Center, LLC	1.4 mi	Oakland, CA	★★★☆☆	3/5
Marina Garden Nursing Center	1.5 mi	Alameda, CA	★★★★★	5/5
Bay Area Healthcare Center	1.8 mi	Oakland, CA	★★★★★	5/5
Alameda Hospital D/P SNF	2.1 mi	Alameda, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5	abuse
Bay View Rehabilitation Hospital, LLC	2.3 mi	Alameda, CA	★☆☆☆☆	1/5	abuse

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Oakland →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555189.

The Care File

Visit checklist — Mercy Retirement & Care Center

3431 Foothill Blvd., Oakland, CA 94601 · 5105348540

Health inspection rating 4/5 · CMS overall 4/5· Fines (3y): $16,675

Most serious findings on record:

▲ Sep 27, 2024 (F-0684, Actual 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.
▲ Jun 9, 2023 (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.
▲ Jun 9, 2023 (F-0692, Actual harm, one-off): The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration.

Questions for the administrator:

☐ "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?"
☐ "How do you monitor residents' weight and eating, and what happens when someone starts losing weight?"
☐ "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
☐ "What were the findings behind this administration citation, and what has leadership changed since?"
☐ "What specific steps do you take to prevent abuse and neglect, and how are staff trained on them?"
☐ "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
☐ "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
☐ "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 555189 · Verify at medicare.gov/care-compare · Printed from The Care File (thecarefile.com)