Mission Valley Post Acute

Name: Mission Valley Post Acute
Address: 2400 PARKSIDE DRIVE, Fremont, CA, 94536, US
Telephone: 5107937222

2400 Parkside Drive, Fremont, CA 94536 · Alameda County · 85 certified beds · avg 81 residents/day · certified since Feb 1, 1969

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

3/5

Health inspection rating (on-site)

Serious findings on record

Fines, last 3 years

3.64

Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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

Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · 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.

All citations in the current public record (32)

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
Jun 11, 2026	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The facility employed staff who were not licensed, certified, or registered as required by state law. · from a complaint
Jun 11, 2026	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · from a complaint
May 21, 2026	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.
May 21, 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.
May 21, 2026	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.
May 21, 2026	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.
May 21, 2026	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.
May 21, 2026	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices.
May 21, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
May 21, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The 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.
May 21, 2026	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.
May 21, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
May 21, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not keep residents' medications free from unnecessary drugs. Residents should only take medicines they truly need, at the right dose, for a clear reason.
Oct 10, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Oct 10, 2024	B · Minimal risk, repeated	The facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms.
Mar 27, 2024	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
Oct 21, 2021	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Oct 21, 2021	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Oct 21, 2021	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.
Oct 21, 2021	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.
Oct 21, 2021	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not fully assess residents on time — a complete assessment of health, abilities, and needs is required when a resident is first admitted and at least once every 12 months after that.
Oct 21, 2021	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Oct 21, 2021	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives.
Oct 21, 2021	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.
Oct 21, 2021	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Oct 21, 2021	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail.
Oct 21, 2021	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.
Oct 21, 2021	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The 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.
Oct 21, 2021	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication.
Oct 21, 2021	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.
Oct 21, 2021	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Oct 21, 2021	B · Minimal risk, repeated	The facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (2 → 11).

Year	Citations	Worst severity that year
2021	16	E
2024	3	D
2026	13	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)

No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.

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)	3.64	4.31	3.95	bottom 17% in California; bottom 44% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours	0.69	0.61	0.69	top 24% in California; top 37% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing	3.30	3.90	3.50	bottom 16% in California; bottom 47% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)	0.61	0.51	0.48	top 20% in California; top 22% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)	33.3	36.7	45.8	top 40% in California; top 20% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)	33.3	38.1	42.9	top 40% in California; top 33% 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 4.06, RN 0.77, weekend 3.67. Staffing rating: 4/5.

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 / manager	Type	Role	Stake	Since
Apt, Frederick	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2024
Bills, Kelly	Individual	W-2 Managing Employee	NOT APPLICABLE	03/01/2023
Bills, Kelly	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	03/01/2023
Dhugga, Gurpreet	Individual	Contracted Managing Employee	NOT APPLICABLE	12/01/2023
Hancock, Mark	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2024
Jergensen, Joshua	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2024
Mitchell, John	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2024

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 verify licenses and certifications for every caregiver before they start, and how often do you recheck them?"
"How does your pharmacist review residents' medications, and how quickly can you fill new or urgent prescriptions?"
"Can we tour the resident rooms, bathrooms, and common areas today, including areas not on the usual tour route?"
"How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
"What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
"Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
"How do you inspect and maintain essential equipment, and how quickly are repairs made?"
"Can you give me examples of how you adjust daily routines and room setups to fit each resident's preferences?"
"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
We Care Skilled Nursing - Fremont	0.1 mi	Fremont, CA	★★★☆☆	3/5
Country Drive Post Acute	0.1 mi	Fremont, CA	★★★☆☆	3/5
Crestwood Treatment Center	0.1 mi	Fremont, CA	★★★★★	4/5
Niles Canyon Post Acute	0.9 mi	Fremont, CA	★★★★★	5/5
Fremont Healthcare Center	1.2 mi	Fremont, CA	★★★★☆	3/5
Crestwood Manor - Fremont	1.6 mi	Fremont, CA	★★★★★	5/5
Masonic Home	3.3 mi	Union City, CA	★★★★☆	4/5
Eden Healthcare Center	7.5 mi	Hayward, CA	★★☆☆☆	2/5	abuse
Emmanuel Post Acute Care - Hayward	7.8 mi	Hayward, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5
Hayward Post Acute	8.2 mi	Hayward, CA	★★★★☆	4/5
Pleasanton Nursing and Rehabilitation Center	9.1 mi	Pleasanton, CA	★★★★★	5/5
Vista Post Acute	9.2 mi	Hayward, CA	★★★★☆	4/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Fremont →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 055276.

The Care File

Visit checklist — Mission Valley Post Acute

2400 Parkside Drive, Fremont, CA 94536 · 5107937222

Health inspection rating 3/5 · CMS overall 4/5· Fines (3y): $0

Questions for the administrator:

☐ "How do you verify licenses and certifications for every caregiver before they start, and how often do you recheck them?"
☐ "How does your pharmacist review residents' medications, and how quickly can you fill new or urgent prescriptions?"
☐ "Can we tour the resident rooms, bathrooms, and common areas today, including areas not on the usual tour route?"
☐ "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
☐ "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
☐ "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
☐ "How do you inspect and maintain essential equipment, and how quickly are repairs made?"
☐ "Can you give me examples of how you adjust daily routines and room setups to fit each resident's preferences?"
☐ "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 055276 · Verify at medicare.gov/care-compare · Printed from The Care File (thecarefile.com)