2501 Alvin Avenue, San Jose, CA 95121 (opens Google Maps) · Santa Clara County · (408) 238-9751· 163 certified beds · avg 154 residents/day · certified since Dec 17, 1991 · 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 →
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5 · 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.
▲ Immediate jeopardy, pattern · 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): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was a pattern: more than a limited occurrence, without being widespread. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Sep 16, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · 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): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: May 13, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 35 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. F-0801
The facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service. F-0802
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Aug 21, 2025 | ▲ K · Immediate jeopardy, pattern | 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 |
| Aug 21, 2025 | 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 |
| Aug 21, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service. · F-0802 |
| Aug 21, 2025 | 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 |
| Aug 21, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not have a policy covering how food brought in by family and visitors is used and stored safely. · F-0813 |
| Aug 21, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. · F-0814 |
| Aug 21, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0656 |
| Aug 21, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0657 |
| Aug 21, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Aug 21, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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. · F-0700 |
| Aug 21, 2025 | 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 |
| Aug 21, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide necessary behavioral health care and services — support for residents' mental and emotional wellbeing, including conditions like depression and anxiety. · F-0740 |
| Aug 21, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide each resident with a nourishing, tasty, well-balanced diet that meets their daily nutritional and special dietary needs. · F-0800 |
| Aug 21, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0803 |
| Aug 21, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. · F-0908 |
| Aug 21, 2025 | 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 |
| Jun 27, 2024 | 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 |
| Jun 27, 2024 | 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 |
| Jun 27, 2024 | 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 |
| Apr 18, 2024 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | 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 |
| Mar 28, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0609 |
| Jul 12, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Jul 12, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not treat residents with respect and dignity, or did not let them keep and use their own personal belongings. · F-0557 |
| Jul 12, 2021 | 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 |
| Jul 12, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0637 |
| Jul 12, 2021 | 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 |
| Jul 12, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658 |
| Jul 12, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0677 |
| Jul 12, 2021 | 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 |
| Jul 12, 2021 | 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 |
| Jul 12, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · F-0698 |
| Jul 12, 2021 | 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 |
| Jul 12, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. · F-0801 |
| Jul 12, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have a policy covering how food brought in by family and visitors is used and stored safely. · F-0813 |
| Jul 12, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0881 |
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (3 → 16).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 14 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 5 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2025 | 16 | 1 | K ▲ |
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.
How to file a complaint about care →
1 fine totaling $51,753.
Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Aug 21, 2025 | Fine | $51,753 |
What these staffing numbers mean →
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) | 4.54 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 27% in California; top 22% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.78 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 18% in California; top 29% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.19 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 24% in California; top 18% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.42 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 42% in California; top 44% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 16.7 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 4% in California; top 1% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 24.0 | 38.1 | 42.9 | top 25% in California; top 20% 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 3.95, RN 0.68, weekend 3.65.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.95 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 5/5.
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: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Mission de la Casa. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
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.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
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 - Individual
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nguyen, Ngai | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 10/27/1999 |
| Aoay, Norie | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/03/2024 |
| Aoay, Norie | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/03/2024 |
| Eieta, Julie | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2017 |
| Eieta, Julie | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2017 |
| Evans, Joy | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/14/2025 |
| Evans, Joy | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/14/2025 |
| Gupta, Atin | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/30/2024 |
| Gupta, Atin | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/30/2024 |
| Hedger, Josh | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/17/2017 |
| Hedger, Josh | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/17/2017 |
| Luc, Ha | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/16/2020 |
| Luc, Ha | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/16/2020 |
| Lucas, Alethea | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/08/2023 |
| Lucas, Alethea | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/08/2023 |
| Nguyen, Anh | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2007 |
| Nguyen, Anh | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2007 |
| Nguyen, Kym | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2018 |
| Nguyen, Kym | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2018 |
| Nguyen, Ngai | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/27/1999 |
Showing 20 of 31 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 11 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Ridge Post Acute | 2.8 mi | San Jose, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Vista Manor Nursing Center | 3.0 mi | San Jose, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Canyon Springs Post-Acute | 3.2 mi | San Jose, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| San Jose Healthcare & Wellness Center | 3.2 mi | San Jose, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Inspire Behavioral Health | 4.0 mi | San Jose, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| The Redwoods Post-Acute | 4.5 mi | San Jose, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Herman Health Care Center | 4.6 mi | San Jose, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Lincoln Glen Skilled Nursing | 4.8 mi | San Jose, CA | ★★★★★ | 3/5 | |
| White Blossom Care Center | 5.5 mi | San Jose, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Empress Care Center, LLC | 5.6 mi | San Jose, CA | ★★★★☆ | 2/5 | |
| Skyline Healthcare Center - San Jose | 6.1 mi | San Jose, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| O'Connor Hospital D/P SNF | 6.1 mi | San Jose, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
CMS records place this facility in Santa Clara, CA — 50 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
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 555487.
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details