How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
444 W Lexington, El Cajon, CA 92020 (opens Google Maps) · San Diego County · (619) 442-7744· 52 certified beds · avg 50 residents/day · certified since May 11, 1994 · 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: THE ENSIGN GROUP (342 facilities, chain avg rating 3.2★)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★★★5/5 · 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.
Showing the latest 3 of 12 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 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
The 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
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 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804 |
| 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 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 |
| May 30, 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. · F-0880 |
| Dec 9, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 |
| Dec 9, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. · F-0801 |
| Dec 9, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0803 |
| Feb 7, 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 |
| Feb 7, 2020 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 7, 2020 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from misuse of their belongings or money — this is called misappropriation, and it includes theft or improper use of a resident's property or funds. · F-0602 |
| Feb 7, 2020 | 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 |
| Feb 7, 2020 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility used feeding tubes without a valid medical reason or the resident's agreement, or did not provide proper care to residents who have feeding tubes. · F-0693 |
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (3 → 4).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | 5 | 0 | E |
| 2021 | 3 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 4 | 0 | E |
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.
How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
What these staffing numbers mean →
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) | 5.72 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 6% in California; top 6% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.79 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 18% in California; top 28% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.96 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 7% in California; top 7% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.36 | 0.51 | 0.48 | bottom 48% in California; bottom 44% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 22.6 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 12% in California; top 5% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 25.0 | 38.1 | 42.9 | top 26% in California; top 20% 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 4.20, RN 0.58, weekend 3.65.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.20 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 5/5.
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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: —/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Parkside Health and Wellness Center. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
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.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Burnam, Soon | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/10/2014 |
| Burnam, Soon | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/10/2025 |
| Ensign Services INC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2014 |
| Keetch, Chad | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2011 |
| Michlin, Bernard | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/03/2020 |
| Michlin, Bernard | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/03/2020 |
| Michlin, Bernard | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/10/2025 |
| Oh, Katherine | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2025 |
| Oldroyd, Matthew | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2015 |
| Oldroyd, Matthew | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2015 |
| Oldroyd, Matthew | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/10/2025 |
| Port, Barry | Individual | Individual Is an Owner, Partner or Trustee of Any ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/10/2025 |
| Sato, Ami | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/09/2024 |
| Willits, Adam | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2023 |
All 14 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
CMS lists this facility under the chain The Ensign Group — 342 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.
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 341 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Somerset Post Acute Care | 0.6 mi | El Cajon, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Magnolia Post Acute Care | 0.7 mi | El Cajon, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Stillwater Post-Acute | 0.7 mi | El Cajon, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| San Diego Post-Acute Center | 1.1 mi | El Cajon, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Villa Las Palmas Healthcare Center | 1.2 mi | El Cajon, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Victoria Post Acute Care | 1.2 mi | El Cajon, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Bradley Court | 2.2 mi | El Cajon, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Cottonwood Canyon Healthcare Center | 2.4 mi | El Cajon, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Granite Hills Healthcare & Wellness Centre, LLC | 2.4 mi | El Cajon, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Grossmont Post Acute Care | 2.5 mi | La Mesa, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Grossmont Hospital D/P SNF | 2.5 mi | La Mesa, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Community Care Center | 2.8 mi | La Mesa, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
CMS records place this facility in San Diego, CA — 83 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
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 555596.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details