CaliforniaSan Jose

Mission de la Casa

2501 Alvin Avenue, San Jose, CA 95121 · Santa Clara County · 163 certified beds · avg 154 residents/day · certified since Dec 17, 1991

1/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
2
Serious findings on record
$51,753
Fines, last 3 years
4.54
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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

Health inspection rating: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5

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)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, repeated · Aug 21, 2025 · F-0880

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.

Why it matters: Weak infection control lets illnesses like flu, COVID-19, and drug-resistant infections spread quickly among vulnerable residents.

Severity (K): A life-threatening or extremely dangerous situation affected several residents. Among the most serious findings an inspection can produce.

Corrected: Sep 16, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Apr 18, 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: May 13, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (35)

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
Aug 21, 2025▲ K · Immediate jeopardy, 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.
Aug 21, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service.
Aug 21, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service.
Aug 21, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Aug 21, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not have a policy covering how food brought in by family and visitors is used and stored safely.
Aug 21, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
Aug 21, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Aug 21, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Aug 21, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Aug 21, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility used bed rails without first trying safer alternatives, or without assessing the resident's safety risk, discussing the risks and benefits with the resident or family, getting consent, and installing the rails correctly.
Aug 21, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Aug 21, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide necessary behavioral health care and services — support for residents' mental and emotional wellbeing, including conditions like depression and anxiety.
Aug 21, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide each resident with a nourishing, tasty, well-balanced diet that meets their daily nutritional and special dietary needs.
Aug 21, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Aug 21, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices.
Aug 21, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
Jun 27, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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 27, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Jun 27, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Apr 18, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Mar 28, 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
Jul 12, 2021E · 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.
Jul 12, 2021D · 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.
Jul 12, 2021D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Jul 12, 2021D · 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.
Jul 12, 2021D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Jul 12, 2021D · 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.
Jul 12, 2021D · 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.
Jul 12, 2021D · 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.
Jul 12, 2021D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Jul 12, 2021D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail.
Jul 12, 2021D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Jul 12, 2021D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service.
Jul 12, 2021D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have a policy covering how food brought in by family and visitors is used and stored safely.
Jul 12, 2021D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (3 → 16).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2021140E
202451G ▲
2025161K ▲

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 $51,753.

DateTypeAmount / length
Aug 21, 2025Fine$51,753

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)4.544.313.95top 27% in California; top 22% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.780.610.69top 18% in California; top 29% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing4.193.903.50top 24% in California; top 18% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.420.510.48top 42% in California; top 44% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)16.736.745.8top 4% in California; top 1% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)24.038.142.9top 25% in California; top 20% 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 3.95, RN 0.68, weekend 3.65. Staffing rating: 5/5.

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 - Individual

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Nguyen, NgaiIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%10/27/1999
Aoay, NorieIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/03/2024
Aoay, NorieIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE06/03/2024
Eieta, JulieIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2017
Eieta, JulieIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2017
Evans, JoyIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/14/2025
Evans, JoyIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/14/2025
Gupta, AtinIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE09/30/2024
Gupta, AtinIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE09/30/2024
Hedger, JoshIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE04/17/2017
Hedger, JoshIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE04/17/2017
Luc, HaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE08/16/2020
Luc, HaIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE08/16/2020
Lucas, AletheaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE02/08/2023
Lucas, AletheaIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/08/2023
Nguyen, AnhIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2007
Nguyen, AnhIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2007
Nguyen, KymIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2018
Nguyen, KymIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2018
Nguyen, NgaiIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE10/27/1999

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
The Ridge Post Acute2.8 miSan Jose, CA★★★★★4/5
Vista Manor Nursing Center3.0 miSan Jose, CA★★★★★5/5
Canyon Springs Post-Acute3.2 miSan Jose, CA★★★★☆3/5
San Jose Healthcare & Wellness Center3.2 miSan Jose, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Inspire Behavioral Health4.0 miSan Jose, CA★★☆☆☆1/5
The Redwoods Post-Acute4.6 miSan Jose, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Herman Health Care Center4.6 miSan Jose, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5
Lincoln Glen Skilled Nursing4.8 miSan Jose, CA★★★★★3/5
White Blossom Care Center5.5 miSan Jose, CA★★☆☆☆1/5
Empress Care Center, LLC5.6 miSan Jose, CA★★★★☆2/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in San Jose →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555487.