CaliforniaMoraga

Moraga Post Acute

348 Rheem Boulevard, Moraga, CA 94556 · Contra Costa County · 49 certified beds · avg 47 residents/day · certified since Feb 13, 1970

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

4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
1
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.47
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: 5/5

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 · Mar 12, 2026 · 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 21, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (28)

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
Apr 13, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Apr 13, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility was not properly licensed, or did not operate in compliance with federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and accepted professional standards. · from a complaint
Mar 12, 2026▲ 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 12, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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. · from a complaint
Mar 12, 2026D · 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. · from a complaint
Mar 5, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility was not properly licensed, or did not operate in compliance with federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and accepted professional standards. · from a complaint
Nov 8, 2024D · 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.
Nov 3, 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.
Nov 3, 2023F · 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.
Nov 3, 2023F · 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.
Nov 3, 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.
Nov 3, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Nov 3, 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.
Nov 3, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives.
Nov 3, 2023D · 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.
Nov 3, 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.
Aug 1, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable. · from a complaint
Aug 1, 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. · from a complaint
Jul 9, 2021F · 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.
Jul 9, 2021F · 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.
Jul 9, 2021F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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 9, 2021E · 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.
Jul 9, 2021D · 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.
Jul 9, 2021D · 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.
Jul 9, 2021D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration.
Jul 9, 2021D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service.
Jul 9, 2021D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Jul 9, 2021D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (9 → 1).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2021100F
2023110F
202410D
202661G ▲

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)

0 fines totaling $0, plus 1 Medicare payment denial period.

DateTypeAmount / length
Mar 5, 2026Payment Denial41 days from Apr 10, 2026

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)3.474.313.95bottom 9% in California; bottom 35% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.300.610.69bottom 12% in California; bottom 10% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.173.903.50bottom 10% in California; bottom 40% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.300.510.48bottom 35% in California; bottom 32% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)39.336.745.8bottom 40% in California; top 35% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)0.038.142.9

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 4.10, RN 0.36, weekend 3.74. 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
Providence Group North LLCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%06/01/2016
Apt, FrederickIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Cook, IanIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE09/01/2022
Jergensen, JoshuaIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Mitchell, JohnIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024

Questions to ask on your visit

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Orinda Care Center, LLC3.0 miOrinda, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Tice Valley Post Acute3.4 miWalnut Creek, CA★★★★★4/5
Walnut Creek Skilled Nursing & Rehabilitation Cent3.5 miWalnut Creek, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Rossmoor Post Acute3.5 miWalnut Creek, CA★★★★★4/5
Tampico Healthcare Center5.5 miWalnut Creek, CA★★★★☆3/5
La Casa via Transitional Care Center5.6 miWalnut Creek, CA★★★★★4/5
Rosewood Post Acute6.0 miPleasant Hill, CA★★★★☆4/5
Pleasant Hill Post Acute6.3 miPleasant Hill, CA★★★★☆3/5
Redwood Healthcare Center LLC6.5 miOakland, CA★★★★☆4/5
Excell Health Care Center6.6 miOakland, CA★★★★★5/5
Bay Marina Post Acute6.8 miOakland, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Bellaken Skilled Nursing Center6.8 miOakland, CA★★★★★5/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Moraga →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 055085.