California ›Napa

Napa Community Health Center

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

1800 Pueblo Ave, Napa, CA 94558 (opens Google Maps) · Napa County · (707) 224-7925· 49 certified beds · avg 29 residents/day · certified since Jun 27, 1985 · 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 →

1/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jun 5, 2026
3
Serious findings on record
most recent Jun 5, 2026
$48,355
Fines, last 3 years
6.35
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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

New to these records? How to read an inspection report →

Health inspection rating: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · CMS overall rating: 1/5 · 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.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · 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): 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: Jul 7, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · 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): 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: Jul 7, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · 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): 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: Apr 29, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 38 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

  1. G · Actual 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

  2. G · Actual harm, isolated

    The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. F-0692

  3. F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread

    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. F-0550

View all 38 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings

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.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Jun 5, 2026▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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
Jun 5, 2026▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692
Jun 5, 2026F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe 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. · F-0550
Jun 5, 2026F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. · F-0801
Jun 5, 2026F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe 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 5, 2026F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. · F-0814
Jun 5, 2026F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records. · F-0851
Jun 5, 2026F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe 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
Jun 5, 2026F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests. · F-0925
Jun 5, 2026F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe 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. · F-0942
Jun 5, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. · F-0552
Jun 5, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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. · F-0578
Jun 5, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689
Jun 5, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0605
Jun 5, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0655
Jun 5, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0686
Jun 5, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755
Jun 5, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Jun 5, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not have a policy covering how food brought in by family and visitors is used and stored safely. · F-0813
Mar 26, 2026▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0757
Mar 26, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0550
Mar 26, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0552
Mar 26, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0605
Feb 12, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0610
Apr 26, 2024F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe 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
Apr 26, 2024F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe 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
Apr 26, 2024F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe 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
Apr 26, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684
Apr 26, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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. · F-0688
Apr 26, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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. · F-0808
Apr 26, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. · F-0908
Apr 26, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required. · F-0730
Sep 12, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0610
Jan 25, 2023F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584
Jan 25, 2023F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689
Jan 25, 2023F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe 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. · F-0919
Jan 25, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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. · F-0623
Jan 25, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations. · F-0883

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (8 → 19).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 6
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 8
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 23
Serious citations (G–L): 3

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202360F
202480F
202510D
2026233G ▲

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)

How to file a complaint about care →

3 fines totaling $48,355, plus 1 Medicare payment denial period.

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.

DateTypeAmount / length
Jun 5, 2026Fine$13,065
Jun 5, 2026Fine$22,225
Mar 26, 2026Fine$13,065
Mar 26, 2026Payment Denial11 days from Apr 30, 2026

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

What these staffing numbers mean →

Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
This facilityCalifornia averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 6.35
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 1.05
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 5.35
California average: 3.90
U.S. average: 3.50

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

MeasureThis facilityCalifornia avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)6.354.313.95top 4% in California; top 3% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours1.050.610.69top 10% in California; top 14% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing5.353.903.50top 5% in California; top 4% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.470.510.48top 35% in California; top 37% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)—36.745.8—
RN turnover (%)—38.142.9—

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 5.92, RN 0.97, weekend 4.99.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (5.92 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 4/5.

Quality measures: assessments & claims

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: 2/5 · long-stay residents: 1/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5

Costs & payment

Price evidence · separate from quality

No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Napa Community Health Center. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.

Calculate a stay from a quote you receive

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.

Before you compare prices

  • Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
  • Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
  • Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.

Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price

Who owns this facility

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 / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Piner, GaryIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest—06/27/1985
Piners Nursing Home INCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest—07/01/1985
Piner, JeremyIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE11/25/2014
Reeves, DaneIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE01/14/2014

All 4 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.

Questions to ask on your visit

Full visit checklist →

Print visit checklist

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?"

Also worth asking anywhere

  • "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
  • "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
  • "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"

Nearby facilities (12 closest of 19 within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Napa Valley Care Center0.8 miNapa, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Napa Post Acute0.9 miNapa, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5
The Meadows of Napa Valley2.6 miNapa, CA★★★★★5/5
Dept of State Hospitals - Napa D/P SNF3.5 miNapa, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Veterans Home of California - Yountville - SNF6.4 miYountville, CA★★★★★4/5
Sonoma Post Acute8.8 miSonoma, CA★★★★☆3/5
Broadway Villa Post Acute9.0 miSonoma, CA★★★★★3/5
Valley of the Moon Post Acute9.4 miSonoma, CA★★★☆☆2/5abuse
Solano Post Acute13.2 miVallejo, CA★★☆☆☆1/5
Greenfield Care Center of Fairfield14.1 miFairfield, CA—/5SFF
Emmanuel Care Center - Travis14.1 miFairfield, CA—/5
Fairfield Post Acute Rehabilitation14.1 miFairfield, CA★★★★☆3/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Napa →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555207.

This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).

Your research

Viewed & saved homes

Kept in this browser tab for this session. Choose to remember them only on a device you trust. Opening a record or comparison sends its usual page request.

Selected for comparison

Recently viewed

Prices entered in a cost worksheet stay on that page and are not saved. Privacy details