Napa Community Health Center
1800 Pueblo Ave, Napa, CA 94558 · Napa County · 49 certified beds · avg 29 residents/day · certified since Jun 27, 1985
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
Health inspection rating: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · CMS overall rating: 1/5
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 · Jun 5, 2026 · F-0658
The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Why it matters: Care that falls below professional standards can directly harm a resident's health and recovery.
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: Jul 7, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Jun 5, 2026 · F-0692
The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration.
Why it matters: Malnutrition and dehydration can quickly weaken a resident and lead to serious complications.
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: Jul 7, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Mar 26, 2026 · F-0757 · triggered by a complaint
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.
Why it matters: Unneeded drugs expose residents to side effects, drowsiness, falls, and dangerous interactions.
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: Apr 29, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
All citations in the current public record (38)
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 5, 2026 | ▲ G · Actual 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. |
| Jun 5, 2026 | ▲ G · Actual harm, one-off | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. |
| Jun 5, 2026 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The 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. |
| Jun 5, 2026 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. |
| Jun 5, 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. |
| Jun 5, 2026 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. |
| Jun 5, 2026 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records. |
| Jun 5, 2026 | 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. |
| Jun 5, 2026 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests. |
| Jun 5, 2026 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not educate its staff on residents' rights and the facility's responsibilities toward residents. Staff can only respect rights they've been taught about. |
| Jun 5, 2026 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. |
| Jun 5, 2026 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. |
| Jun 5, 2026 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. |
| Jun 5, 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. |
| Jun 5, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Jun 5, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. |
| Jun 5, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. |
| Jun 5, 2026 | 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. |
| Jun 5, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not have a policy covering how food brought in by family and visitors is used and stored safely. |
| Mar 26, 2026 | ▲ G · Actual 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. · from a complaint |
| Mar 26, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. · from a complaint |
| Mar 26, 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. · from a complaint |
| Mar 26, 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. · from a complaint |
| Feb 12, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · from a complaint |
| Apr 26, 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. |
| Apr 26, 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. |
| Apr 26, 2024 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. |
| Apr 26, 2024 | 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. |
| Apr 26, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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. |
| Apr 26, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not make sure special medical diets — like low-sodium or diabetic diets — were properly ordered by the resident's doctor or managed by a qualified dietitian as state law allows. |
| Apr 26, 2024 | 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. |
| Apr 26, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required. |
| Sep 12, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · from a complaint |
| Jan 25, 2023 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. |
| Jan 25, 2023 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. |
| Jan 25, 2023 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. |
| Jan 25, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not give residents (and their representatives and the ombudsman, a state advocate for residents) proper advance notice before a transfer or discharge, including information about their right to appeal. |
| Jan 25, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations. |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (8 → 19).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 6 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 8 | 0 | F |
| 2025 | 1 | 0 | D |
| 2026 | 23 | 3 | G ▲ |
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)
3 fines totaling $48,355, plus 1 Medicare payment denial period.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 5, 2026 | Fine | $13,065 |
| Jun 5, 2026 | Fine | $22,225 |
| Mar 26, 2026 | Fine | $13,065 |
| Mar 26, 2026 | Payment Denial | 11 days from Apr 30, 2026 |
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) | 6.35 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 4% in California; top 3% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 1.05 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 10% in California; top 14% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 5.35 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 5% in California; top 4% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.47 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 35% in California; top 37% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 0.0 | 36.7 | 45.8 | — |
| RN turnover (%) | 0.0 | 38.1 | 42.9 | — |
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 5.92, RN 0.97, weekend 4.99. 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: 2/5 · long-stay residents: 1/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5
Who owns this facility
For profit - Individual
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Piner, Gary | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | — | 06/27/1985 |
| Piners Nursing Home INC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | — | 07/01/1985 |
| Piner, Jeremy | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/25/2014 |
| Reeves, Dane | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/14/2014 |
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "How do you monitor residents' weight and eating, and what happens when someone starts losing weight?"
- "How often is each resident's medication list reviewed, and who decides when a drug can be reduced or stopped?"
- "Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
- "Do you have a qualified dietician on staff, and how involved are they in each resident's nutrition plan?"
- "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?"
- "How do your actual daily staffing levels compare to what's reported on Medicare's Care Compare website?"
- "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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Napa Valley Care Center | 0.8 mi | Napa, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Napa Post Acute | 0.9 mi | Napa, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| The Meadows of Napa Valley | 2.6 mi | Napa, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Dept of State Hospitals - Napa D/P SNF | 3.5 mi | Napa, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Veterans Home of California - Yountville - SNF | 6.4 mi | Yountville, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Sonoma Post Acute | 8.8 mi | Sonoma, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Broadway Villa Post Acute | 9.0 mi | Sonoma, CA | ★★★★★ | 3/5 | |
| Valley of the Moon Post Acute | 9.4 mi | Sonoma, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Solano Post Acute | 13.2 mi | Vallejo, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Greenfield Care Center of Fairfield | 14.1 mi | Fairfield, CA | —/5 | SFF | |
| Emmanuel Care Center - Travis | 14.1 mi | Fairfield, CA | —/5 | ||
| Fairfield Post Acute Rehabilitation | 14.1 mi | Fairfield, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555207.