California ›Cherry Valley

Oak Glen Post Acute

9246 Avenida Miravilla, Cherry Valley, CA 92223 · Riverside County · 59 certified beds · avg 55 residents/day · certified since Nov 22, 1991 · 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: PACS GROUP (274 facilities, chain avg rating 2.9★)

3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
1
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.97
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: 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, repeated · Mar 20, 2024 · F-0600 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors.

Why it matters: Abuse and neglect cause direct physical and emotional harm and are among the most serious failures a nursing home can have.

Severity (H): Multiple residents were actually harmed by the same failure — a pattern of real harm, not an isolated incident.

Corrected: Apr 12, 2024 (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.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Jun 30, 2026D · Potential for 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
Aug 15, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · from a complaint
May 22, 2025F · 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.
May 22, 2025E · 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.
May 22, 2025E · 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.
May 22, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
May 22, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
May 22, 2025D · 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.
May 22, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Dec 9, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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
Sep 4, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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. · from a complaint
Jul 30, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint
Apr 12, 2024F · 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.
Apr 12, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service.
Apr 12, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Apr 12, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Apr 12, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Apr 12, 2024D · 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.
Apr 12, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Apr 12, 2024D · 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.
Apr 12, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have a policy covering how food brought in by family and visitors is used and stored safely.
Apr 12, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not educate residents and staff about COVID-19 vaccination, offer the vaccine to those eligible after that education, or properly document everyone's vaccination status.
Mar 20, 2024▲ H · Actual harm, repeatedThe facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint
Jan 22, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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 10, 2022F · 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 10, 2022F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
Nov 10, 2022F · 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.
Nov 10, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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 10, 2022D · 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.
Nov 10, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not give residents proper notice about what Medicare or Medicaid covers, or about charges the resident might owe for services that aren't covered.
Nov 10, 2022D · 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 10, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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 10, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Nov 10, 2022D · 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.
Nov 10, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Nov 10, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Nov 10, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Nov 10, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (10 → 7).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2022140F
2024151H ▲
202580F
202610D

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
Jan 22, 2024Payment Denial11 days from Apr 5, 2024

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)3.974.313.95bottom 39% in California; top 41% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.270.610.69bottom 8% in California; bottom 7% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.413.903.50bottom 23% in California; top 47% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.210.510.48bottom 13% in California; bottom 14% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)30.236.745.8top 30% in California; top 14% 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 4.38, RN 0.30, weekend 3.76. Staffing rating: 3/5.

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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Apt, FrederickIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE06/15/2023
Hancock, MarkIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE06/15/2023
Mamora, Togar RMIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE06/15/2023
Mamora, Togar RMIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/15/2023
Mitchell, JohnIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE06/15/2023
Murray, JasonIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE06/15/2023

Questions to ask on your visit

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

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Highland Springs Care Center2.7 miBeaumont, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Vista Real Post Acute3.8 miBeaumont, CA★★★★☆3/5
Sundance Creek Post Acute3.9 miBanning, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Sunrise Post Acute4.7 miBanning, CA★★☆☆☆1/5
Yucaipa Hills Post Acute4.8 miYucaipa, CA★★★★☆4/5
Creekside Post Acute4.9 miYucaipa, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Cedar Mountain Post Acute6.2 miYucaipa, CA★★★★☆4/5
University Post Acute10.2 miMentone, CA★★★★★5/5
Highland Care Center of Redlands12.2 miRedlands, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Rancho Bellagio Post Acute12.5 miMoreno Valley, CA★★★★☆3/5
Plymouth Village12.7 miRedlands, CA★★★★☆4/5
Redlands Comm Hosp D/P SNF14.2 miRedlands, CA★★★★☆5/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Cherry Valley →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555492.