California ›Sacramento

Mid-Town Oaks Post-Acute

2600 L Street, Sacramento, CA 95816 · Sacramento County · 100 certified beds · avg 96 residents/day · certified since Nov 1, 1974

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

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
1
Serious findings on record
$15,593
Fines, last 3 years
3.69
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: 3/5

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 14, 2023 · F-0686

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.

Why it matters: Bedsores are painful, can become deeply infected, and in serious cases can be life-threatening.

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 12, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (57)

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
May 14, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · from a complaint
May 14, 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
Apr 16, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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. · from a complaint
Feb 27, 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. · from a complaint
Feb 19, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not let a resident or their legal representative see or buy copies of the resident's own records. · from a complaint
Feb 19, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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. · from a complaint
Feb 11, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Dec 4, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Dec 4, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Dec 4, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Dec 4, 2025E · 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.
Dec 4, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
Dec 4, 2025D · 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.
Dec 4, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Dec 4, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Dec 4, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Dec 4, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Dec 4, 2025C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe 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 7, 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.
Nov 7, 2024E · 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.
Nov 7, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Nov 7, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Nov 7, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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 7, 2024E · 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.
Nov 7, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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 7, 2024D · 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.
Nov 7, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Oct 25, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Oct 25, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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 22, 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
Sep 26, 2024D · 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
Jan 12, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · from a complaint
Jan 8, 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. · from a complaint
Dec 13, 2023E · 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. · from a complaint
Sep 14, 2023▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe 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.
Sep 14, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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.
Sep 14, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
Sep 14, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Sep 14, 2023E · 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.
Sep 14, 2023E · 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.
Sep 14, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Sep 14, 2023E · 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.
Sep 14, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Sep 14, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential.
Sep 14, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Sep 14, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Sep 14, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Sep 14, 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.
Sep 14, 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.
Sep 14, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Sep 14, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Sep 14, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required.
Sep 14, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not try to gradually reduce doses of mood- and mind-altering medications or use non-drug approaches first, as required, or used 'as needed' psychiatric drugs without proper limits.
Sep 14, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
Sep 14, 2023B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe facility did not provide a neutral and fair arbitration process. Arbitration is a way of settling disputes outside of court, and if it's used, the facility must agree with the resident on a neutral arbitrator and a convenient location.
Aug 17, 2023D · 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
Aug 16, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide basic life support, such as CPR, before emergency medical help arrived — care that's required when it matches the doctor's orders and the resident's own written wishes. · from a complaint

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (9 → 11).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2023241G ▲
2024150F
2025110E
202670E

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 $15,593.

DateTypeAmount / length
Sep 14, 2023Fine$15,593

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)3.694.313.95bottom 20% in California; bottom 46% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.440.610.69bottom 42% in California; bottom 28% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.413.903.50bottom 23% in California; top 47% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.440.510.48top 40% in California; top 42% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)54.136.745.8bottom 8% in California; bottom 27% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)78.338.142.9bottom 4% in California; bottom 6% 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 4.07, RN 0.48, weekend 3.76. Staffing rating: 2/5.

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: 5/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Bay Bridge Capital Partners, LLCOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest100%11/05/2021
Hudson River Opco LLCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%11/05/2021
Apt, FrederickIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Espinosa, RaulIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE09/01/2023
Espinosa, RaulIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE09/01/2023
Hancock, MarkIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Jergensen, JoshuaIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Mitchell, JohnIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Sandhu, HarkeshIndividualContracted Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2018

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
McKinley Park Care Center0.5 miSacramento, CA★★★★☆3/5
Saylor Lane Healthcare Center0.7 miSacramento, CA★★★★☆3/5
University Post-Acute Rehab1.1 miSacramento, CA★★★★★4/5
Pioneer House1.6 miSacramento, CA★★★☆☆2/5abuse
Sherwood Healthcare Center1.7 miSacramento, CA★★★★★4/5
Advanced Health Care of Sacramento1.9 miSacramento, CA★★★★★4/5
Asbury Park Nursing and Rehabilitation Center3.2 miSacramento, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Woodside Healthcare Center3.3 miSacramento, CA★★★★★4/5
River Bend Nursing Center3.8 miWest Sacramento, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Cedarwood Post Acute3.9 miSacramento, 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 055493.