How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Palo Alto Post-Acute
911 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (opens Google Maps) · Santa Clara County · (650) 327-0511· 66 certified beds · avg 63 residents/day · certified since Oct 23, 1971 · 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: COVENANT CARE (12 facilities, chain avg rating 2.8★)
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected May 30, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.34
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: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5 · 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 38 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. F-0804
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
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. F-0880
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.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| May 30, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804 |
| May 30, 2025 | 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 |
| May 30, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0880 |
| May 30, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0881 |
| May 30, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| May 30, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · F-0583 |
| May 30, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0605 |
| May 30, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| May 30, 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. · F-0684 |
| May 30, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · F-0697 |
| May 30, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0700 |
| May 30, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755 |
| May 30, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0756 |
| May 30, 2025 | 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 |
| May 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 |
| May 30, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| May 30, 2025 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0912 |
| Feb 26, 2024 | 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 26, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. · F-0814 |
| Feb 26, 2024 | 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 26, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0700 |
| Feb 26, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0880 |
| Feb 26, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0645 |
| Feb 26, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755 |
| Feb 26, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 26, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0806 |
| Feb 26, 2024 | 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 |
| Feb 26, 2024 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | 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 · F-0912 |
| Jan 31, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0610 |
| Apr 8, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| Apr 8, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0756 |
| Apr 8, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0758 |
| Apr 8, 2022 | 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 |
| Apr 8, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0880 |
| Apr 8, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0637 |
| Apr 8, 2022 | 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. · F-0684 |
| Apr 8, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Apr 8, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0912 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (11 → 17).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2022
All citations: 9
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 12
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 17
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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)
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: 3.34
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.94
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 2.85
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) | 3.34 | 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 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 4.32, RN 1.21, weekend 3.68.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.32 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: 5/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Palo Alto Post-Acute. 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 - 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 |
Showing 20 of 30 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 10 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Covenant Care — 12 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.
- Shoreline Care Center — Oxnard, CA · overall 2/5
- Silver Hills Health Care Center — Las Vegas, NV · overall 2/5
- Silver Ridge Healthcare Center — Las Vegas, NV · overall 4/5
- Buena Vista Care Center — Santa Barbara, CA · overall 2/5
- Camino Ridge Post-Acute — Mountain View, CA · overall 1/5
- Gilroy Healthcare Center — Gilroy, CA · overall 2/5
- Huntington Park Nursing Center — Huntington Park, CA · overall 2/5
- La Jolla Post-Acute — La Jolla, CA · overall 4/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 11 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.
- "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?"
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 45% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 30 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (12 closest of 89 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 →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Santa Clara, CA — 50 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Plum Tree Care Center — San Jose, CA · overall 5/5
- San Jose Healthcare & Wellness Center — San Jose, CA · overall 3/5
- Santa Clara Post Acute — Santa Clara, CA · overall 3/5
- Saratoga Retirement Community Health Center — Saratoga, CA · overall 5/5
- Skyline Healthcare Center - San Jose — San Jose, CA · overall 1/5
- Stonebrook Health and Rehabilitation — Los Gatos, CA · overall 5/5
- Sunny View Manor — Cupertino, CA · overall 5/5
- Sunnyvale Gardens Post Acute — Sunnyvale, CA · overall 3/5
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 055646.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).