How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Oakwood Gardens Care Center
3510 East Shields, Fresno, CA 93726 (opens Google Maps) · Fresno County · (559) 222-4807· 103 certified beds · avg 97 residents/day · certified since Jan 1, 1967 · 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★)
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jan 30, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.85
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
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: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 5/5 · 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.
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 28 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not let a resident or their legal representative see or buy copies of the resident's own records. · from a complaint F-0573
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 F-0689
The 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 F-0684
View all 28 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.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Jan 9, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not let a resident or their legal representative see or buy copies of the resident's own records. · from a complaint · F-0573 |
| Jan 9, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0689 |
| Apr 22, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 · F-0684 |
| Apr 2, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal 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. · from a complaint · F-0658 |
| Apr 2, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0880 |
| Mar 17, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint · F-0609 |
| Jan 30, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0759 |
| Jan 30, 2025 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0911 |
| Jul 8, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility required residents to give up Medicare or Medicaid benefits or pay privately as a condition of moving in, or failed to tell residents which types of care it does not provide. Both practices are against the rules. · from a complaint · F-0620 |
| Feb 17, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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. · F-0761 |
| Feb 17, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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. · F-0812 |
| Feb 17, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. · F-0552 |
| Feb 17, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641 |
| Feb 17, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0656 |
| Feb 17, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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. · F-0759 |
| Feb 17, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. · F-0801 |
| Feb 17, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility allowed residents to lose the ability to do daily activities — like bathing, dressing, and eating — when there was no medical reason for the decline. Good care helps residents keep the abilities they have. · F-0676 |
| Feb 17, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal 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 |
| Feb 17, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0757 |
| Feb 17, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility was not properly licensed, or did not operate in compliance with federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and accepted professional standards. · F-0836 |
| Feb 17, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0911 |
| Mar 5, 2020 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0812 |
| Mar 5, 2020 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not have a policy covering how food brought in by family and visitors is used and stored safely. · F-0813 |
| Mar 5, 2020 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0558 |
| Mar 5, 2020 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0655 |
| Mar 5, 2020 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · F-0698 |
| Mar 5, 2020 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0919 |
| Mar 5, 2020 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0911 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (12 → 2).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2020
All citations: 7
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 12
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 6
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 0
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 7 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 12 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 1 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 6 | 0 | E |
| 2026 | 2 | 0 | D |
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)
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
What these staffing numbers mean →
This facilityCalifornia averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 3.85
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.29
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.58
California average: 3.90
U.S. average: 3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | California avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 3.85 | 4.31 | 3.95 | bottom 30% in California; top 46% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.29 | 0.61 | 0.69 | bottom 10% in California; bottom 8% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.58 | 3.90 | 3.50 | bottom 37% in California; top 38% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.27 | 0.51 | 0.48 | bottom 27% in California; bottom 26% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 51.7 | 36.7 | 45.8 | bottom 11% in California; bottom 32% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 0.0 | 38.1 | 42.9 | top 1% in California; top 1% in the U.S. |
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 4.01, RN 0.30, weekend 3.73.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.01 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.
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: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · 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 Oakwood Gardens Care 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 - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bay Bridge Capital Partners, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 100% | 11/05/2021 |
| Hudson River Opco LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 11/05/2021 |
| Apt, Frederick | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Grossman, Stephen | Individual | Contracted Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2002 |
| Hobbs, Brett | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2022 |
| Jergensen, Joshua | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Mitchell, John | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
All 7 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Pacs Group — 274 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.
- Ocean Ridge Post Acute — Long Beach, CA · overall 2/5
- Ojai Health & Rehabilitation — Ojai, CA · overall 3/5
- Orchard Post Acute — Fresno, CA · overall 3/5
- Pacific Coast Post Acute — Salinas, CA · overall 4/5
- Pacific Villas Post Acute — Oceanside, CA · overall —/5
- Palomar Heights Post Acute — Escondido, CA · overall 3/5
- Paradise Valley Health Care — National City, CA · overall 5/5
- Peninsula Post-Acute — Burlingame, CA · overall 4/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 273 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
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 I ask for a copy of my family member's records, how quickly will I get them and what does it cost?"
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
- "What is your current medication error rate, and what have you changed to bring errors down?"
- "How many residents share each room, and what options are there for more privacy?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the California midpoint — how does the weekend schedule differ from a weekday?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 52% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (12 closest of 26 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Covenant Post Acute | 0.0 mi | Fresno, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Keystone Post-Acute | 0.3 mi | Fresno, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Community Subacute and Transitional Care Center | 0.6 mi | Fresno, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| The Terraces at San Joaquin Gardens Village | 2.7 mi | Fresno, CA | ★★★★★ | 3/5 | |
| Healthcare Centre of Fresno | 2.8 mi | Fresno, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| North Point Healthcare & Wellness Centre LP | 3.0 mi | Fresno, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Orchard Post Acute | 3.4 mi | Fresno, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Fresno Postacute Care | 3.9 mi | Fresno, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Sierra Vista Healthcare | 3.9 mi | Fresno, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Evergreen Care Center | 3.9 mi | Fresno, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Pacific Gardens Nursing and Rehabilitation Center | 4.0 mi | Fresno, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Morning Star Post Acute | 4.2 mi | Clovis, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Fresno, CA — 31 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Palm Village Retirement Comm. — Reedley, CA · overall 3/5
- Rolling Hills Care Center — Selma, CA · overall 2/5
- Sierra View Homes — Reedley, CA · overall 2/5
- Stonehaven Senior Living — Fresno, CA · overall —/5
Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 055204.