Palo Alto Post-Acute
911 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 · Santa Clara County · 66 certified beds · avg 63 residents/day · certified since Oct 23, 1971
Part of chain: COVENANT CARE (12 facilities, chain avg rating 2.8★)
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.34
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: 4/5
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.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| May 30, 2025 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. |
| May 30, 2025 | 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. |
| May 30, 2025 | 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. |
| May 30, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| May 30, 2025 | 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. |
| May 30, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. |
| May 30, 2025 | 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. |
| May 30, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| May 30, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. |
| May 30, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. |
| May 30, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility used bed rails without first trying safer alternatives, or without assessing the resident's safety risk, discussing the risks and benefits with the resident or family, getting consent, and installing the rails correctly. |
| May 30, 2025 | 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. |
| May 30, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| May 30, 2025 | D · Potential for 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. |
| May 30, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| May 30, 2025 | 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. |
| May 30, 2025 | B · Minimal risk, repeated | The facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms. |
| Feb 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. |
| Feb 26, 2024 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. |
| Feb 26, 2024 | 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 26, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility used bed rails without first trying safer alternatives, or without assessing the resident's safety risk, discussing the risks and benefits with the resident or family, getting consent, and installing the rails correctly. |
| Feb 26, 2024 | 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 26, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Feb 26, 2024 | 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. |
| Feb 26, 2024 | 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. |
| Feb 26, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives. · from a complaint |
| Feb 26, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Feb 26, 2024 | B · Minimal risk, repeated | The facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms. · from a complaint |
| Jan 31, 2024 | 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 8, 2022 | 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. |
| Apr 8, 2022 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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. |
| Apr 8, 2022 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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. |
| Apr 8, 2022 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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 8, 2022 | 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. |
| Apr 8, 2022 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not reassess a resident after a significant change in their condition, such as a sudden decline in health. A full new assessment is required when a resident's condition changes in a major way. |
| Apr 8, 2022 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. |
| Apr 8, 2022 | 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. |
| Apr 8, 2022 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms. |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (11 → 17).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 9 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 12 | 0 | F |
| 2025 | 17 | 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) | 3.34 | 4.31 | 3.95 | bottom 5% in California; bottom 28% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.94 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 13% in California; top 19% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 2.85 | 3.90 | 3.50 | bottom 2% in California; bottom 23% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.93 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 9% in California; top 7% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 45.2 | 36.7 | 45.8 | bottom 25% in California; bottom 49% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 52.6 | 38.1 | 42.9 | bottom 23% in California; bottom 32% 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 4.32, RN 1.21, weekend 3.68. 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: 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Centre Capital Investors V, LP | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 07/17/2008 |
| Centre Covenant Purchaser (b), LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 07/17/2008 |
| Centre Covenant Purchaser (q), LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 07/17/2008 |
| Centre Covenant Purchaser (s), LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 12/19/2008 |
| Centre V Secondary Fund, L.P. | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 07/17/2008 |
| Covenant Care California, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | — | 08/01/1995 |
| Covenant Care, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | — | 04/14/2006 |
| Covenant Holdco, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 07/17/2008 |
| Covenant Subco, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 07/17/2008 |
| Evans, Mary | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 07/17/2008 |
| Levin, Robert | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 07/17/2008 |
| Sims, Christine | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 07/17/2008 |
| State Treasurer of Mich Custodian of Public School Empl RTMNT Systems | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 12/19/2008 |
| Stockwell Fund II LP | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 12/19/2008 |
| Torok, Andrew | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 07/17/2008 |
| Ashley, Dava | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/17/2018 |
| Ashley, Dava | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/26/2018 |
| Carney, Kevin | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2013 |
| Covenant Care California, LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/1995 |
| Evans, Mary | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2013 |
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "Could I join residents for a meal to see the food quality and temperature for myself?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "Who oversees antibiotic use here, and how do you decide when an antibiotic is really needed?"
- "Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
- "How do you protect residents' privacy, both in their medical records and in day-to-day care?"
- "What percentage of your residents are on antipsychotic or sedating medications, and how do you work to reduce that?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Webster House | 0.5 mi | Palo Alto, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| VI at Palo Alto | 1.1 mi | Palo Alto, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Atherton Park Post-Acute | 1.8 mi | Menlo Park, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| The Terraces at Los Altos Health Facility | 4.1 mi | Los Altos, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Devonshire Oaks Nursing Center | 5.2 mi | Redwood City, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| The Sequoias | 5.7 mi | Portola Valley, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Villa Siena | 6.1 mi | Mountain View, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Camino Ridge Post-Acute | 6.5 mi | Mountain View, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Mountain View Healthcare Center | 6.8 mi | Mountain View, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Los Altos Post-Acute | 7.1 mi | Los Altos, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Health Care Ctr at the Forum at Rancho San Antonio | 8.2 mi | Cupertino, CA | ★★★★☆ | 2/5 | |
| Sunnyvale Post-Acute Center | 8.3 mi | Sunnyvale, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 055646.