Morning Star Post Acute

Name: Morning Star Post Acute
Address: 111 BARSTOW AVE., Clovis, CA, 93612, US
Telephone: 5592992591

111 Barstow Ave., Clovis, CA 93612 · Fresno County · 57 certified beds · avg 51 residents/day · certified since Jun 26, 1972 · 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 →

Part of chain: JERICHO CARE GROUP (7 facilities, chain avg rating 2.3★)

2/5

Health inspection rating (on-site)

Serious findings on record

Fines, last 3 years

3.26

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 19, 2025 · F-0580 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away.

Why it matters: A family could learn about a serious injury or decline days later, after the chance to act has passed.

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 30, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (41)

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 18, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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
Feb 20, 2026	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	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.
Feb 20, 2026	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
Feb 20, 2026	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Feb 20, 2026	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Feb 20, 2026	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Feb 20, 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.
Feb 20, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand.
Feb 20, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide required paperwork or notices about a resident's needs, their right to appeal a transfer or discharge, or the facility's bed-hold policy (how long a bed is saved during a hospital stay).
Feb 20, 2026	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.
Feb 20, 2026	B · Minimal risk, repeated	The facility had resident rooms holding more people than allowed — no more than 4 residents per room, and no more than 2 per room in buildings constructed after November 28, 2016.
Sep 19, 2025	▲ G · Actual harm, one-off	The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · from a complaint
Aug 14, 2025	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
Jun 12, 2025	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
Dec 10, 2024	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	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.
Dec 10, 2024	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	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.
Dec 10, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not treat residents with respect and dignity, or did not let them keep and use their own personal belongings.
Dec 10, 2024	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.
Dec 10, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Dec 10, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility had resident rooms holding more people than allowed — no more than 4 residents per room, and no more than 2 per room in buildings constructed after November 28, 2016.
Dec 10, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The 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 10, 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.
Dec 10, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Nov 9, 2023	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service.
Nov 9, 2023	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	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.
Nov 9, 2023	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	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.
Nov 9, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not honor residents' right to share a room with their spouse or a roommate of their choosing, or moved residents to a different room without written notice beforehand.
Nov 9, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Nov 9, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Nov 9, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not prepare and serve food in a form that meets each resident's individual needs — for example, chopped, pureed, or softened food for residents with chewing or swallowing problems.
Nov 9, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility had resident rooms holding more people than allowed — no more than 4 residents per room, and no more than 2 per room in buildings constructed after November 28, 2016.
Nov 9, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors.
Nov 9, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
Nov 9, 2023	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.
Nov 9, 2023	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.
Nov 9, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it.
Nov 9, 2023	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.
Nov 9, 2023	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.
Nov 9, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
Sep 13, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Sep 13, 2023	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.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (9 → 10).

Year	Citations	Serious (G–L)	Worst severity that year
2023	18	0	F
2024	9	0	F
2025	3	1	G ▲
2026	11	0	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)	3.26	4.31	3.95	bottom 4% in California; bottom 24% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours	0.39	0.61	0.69	bottom 29% in California; bottom 20% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing	3.03	3.90	3.50	bottom 5% in California; bottom 33% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)	0.49	0.51	0.48	top 32% in California; top 34% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)	47.7	36.7	45.8	bottom 19% in California; bottom 43% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)	16.7	38.1	42.9	top 13% in California; top 9% 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 3.91, RN 0.46, weekend 3.64. 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 / manager	Type	Role	Stake	Since
Bayshire Central Valley LLC	Organization	5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest	100%	12/01/2022
Carter, Benjamin	Individual	Indirect Ownership Interest	NOT APPLICABLE	12/01/2022
Kirby, Scott	Individual	Indirect Ownership Interest	NOT APPLICABLE	12/01/2022
Salow, Donald	Individual	Indirect Ownership Interest	NOT APPLICABLE	12/01/2022
Badger, Stephen	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	04/01/2024
Badger, Stephen	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	04/01/2024
Beatrez, Kimberly	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	05/10/2006
Beatrez, Kimberly	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	05/10/2006
Grossman, Stephen	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	07/01/2014
Grossman, Stephen	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	07/01/2014
Lopez, Sebastian	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	12/18/2023
Lopez, Sebastian	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	12/18/2023
Parrott, Jason	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	01/30/2023
Parrott, Jason	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	01/30/2023
Rogers, Donna	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	07/01/2024
Rogers, Donna	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	07/01/2024
Vallejo, Micaela	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	02/01/2023
Vallejo, Micaela	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	02/01/2023

Questions to ask on your visit

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

"If my family member falls or their condition changes, exactly when and how will I be notified?"
"What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
"What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
"Can I see where garbage is stored and how often it's removed?"
"Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
"Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
"Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
"Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
"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
Horizon Health & Subacute Center	2.3 mi	Fresno, CA	★★☆☆☆	2/5
Willow Creek Healthcare Center	2.3 mi	Clovis, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5
The Terraces at San Joaquin Gardens Village	3.9 mi	Fresno, CA	★★★★★	3/5
North Point Healthcare & Wellness Centre LP	3.9 mi	Fresno, CA	★★★★★	5/5
Keystone Post-Acute	4.0 mi	Fresno, CA	★★☆☆☆	2/5
Oakwood Gardens Care Center	4.2 mi	Fresno, CA	★★★★★	4/5
Covenant Post Acute	4.2 mi	Fresno, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5
Community Subacute and Transitional Care Center	4.7 mi	Fresno, CA	★★★★★	5/5
Orchard Post Acute	5.1 mi	Fresno, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5
Evergreen Care Center	5.3 mi	Fresno, CA	★★★☆☆	3/5
Pacific Gardens Nursing and Rehabilitation Center	5.5 mi	Fresno, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5
California Home for the Aged	5.9 mi	Fresno, CA	★★★★★	5/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Clovis →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 056338.

The Care File

Visit checklist — Morning Star Post Acute

111 Barstow Ave., Clovis, CA 93612 · 5592992591

Health inspection rating 2/5 · CMS overall 3/5· Fines (3y): $0

Most serious findings on record:

▲ Sep 19, 2025 (F-0580, Actual harm, one-off): The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away.

Questions for the administrator:

☐ "If my family member falls or their condition changes, exactly when and how will I be notified?"
☐ "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
☐ "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
☐ "Can I see where garbage is stored and how often it's removed?"
☐ "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
☐ "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
☐ "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
☐ "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
☐ "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 056338 · Verify at medicare.gov/care-compare · Printed from The Care File (thecarefile.com)