How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Pioneer House
415 P Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 (opens Google Maps) · Sacramento County · (916) 442-4906· 50 certified beds · avg 47 residents/day · certified since Apr 1, 1993 · 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 →
Abuse citation flag (CMS)
Part of chain: CYPRESS HEALTHCARE GROUP (13 facilities, chain avg rating 3.8★)
The abuse flag means inspectors cited this facility for abuse that caused harm to a resident within the past year, or potential for harm in each of the last two years. Source: CMS.
2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Dec 4, 2025
1
Serious findings on record
most recent Nov 24, 2025
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.18
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: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 3/5 · 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.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Nov 24, 2025 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Nov 24, 2025 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.
Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Nov 25, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 60 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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. · from a complaint F-0686
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 make sure a transfer or discharge met the resident's needs and preferences, or did not properly prepare the resident to leave safely. · from a complaint F-0627
View all 60 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 3, 2026 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0686 |
| Feb 10, 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 |
| Dec 9, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure a transfer or discharge met the resident's needs and preferences, or did not properly prepare the resident to leave safely. · from a complaint · F-0627 |
| Dec 4, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658 |
| Dec 4, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · F-0677 |
| Dec 4, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692 |
| Dec 4, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Dec 4, 2025 | 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 |
| Dec 4, 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 |
| Dec 4, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests. · F-0925 |
| Dec 4, 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 |
| Nov 24, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual 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 |
| Sep 5, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Feb 18, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure special medical diets — like low-sodium or diabetic diets — were properly ordered by the resident's doctor or managed by a qualified dietitian as state law allows. · from a complaint · F-0808 |
| Jan 24, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not properly prepare residents for a safe transfer or discharge. Before a resident leaves, the facility must get them ready and make sure the move is safe and orderly. · from a complaint · F-0624 |
| Dec 26, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not treat residents with respect and dignity, or did not let them keep and use their own personal belongings. · from a complaint · F-0557 |
| Dec 19, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Nov 29, 2024 | 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 |
| Nov 29, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · from a complaint · F-0677 |
| Nov 15, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Nov 15, 2024 | 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 |
| Nov 15, 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 |
| Nov 15, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not treat residents with respect and dignity, or did not let them keep and use their own personal belongings. · F-0557 |
| Nov 15, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0609 |
| Nov 15, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' individual preferences, choices, values, and beliefs in their daily life and care. · F-0675 |
| Jul 18, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not have firmly secured handrails on both sides of its hallways. · from a complaint · F-0924 |
| Apr 2, 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. · from a complaint · F-0919 |
| Feb 23, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Jan 17, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Nov 8, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Nov 8, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Nov 8, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the social services residents need — such as counseling, help with adjustment, or connecting to outside resources — to achieve the best possible quality of life. · from a complaint · F-0745 |
| Oct 12, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service. · F-0802 |
| Oct 12, 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 |
| Oct 12, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. · F-0814 |
| Oct 12, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Oct 12, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Oct 12, 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 |
| Oct 12, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658 |
| Oct 12, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Oct 12, 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 |
| Oct 12, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Oct 12, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Oct 12, 2023 | 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 |
| Oct 12, 2023 | 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 |
| Oct 12, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · F-0580 |
| Oct 12, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0623 |
| Oct 12, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not fully assess residents on time — a complete assessment of health, abilities, and needs is required when a resident is first admitted and at least once every 12 months after that. · F-0636 |
| Oct 12, 2023 | 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 |
| Oct 12, 2023 | 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 |
| Oct 12, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · F-0657 |
| Oct 12, 2023 | 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 |
| Oct 12, 2023 | 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 |
| Oct 12, 2023 | 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 |
| Oct 12, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Oct 12, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure special medical diets — like low-sodium or diabetic diets — were properly ordered by the resident's doctor or managed by a qualified dietitian as state law allows. · F-0808 |
| Oct 12, 2023 | 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 |
| Oct 12, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · F-0921 |
| Sep 26, 2023 | 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 |
| Aug 21, 2023 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0919 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (6 → 8).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 31
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 14
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 13
Serious citations (G–L): 1
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 31 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 14 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 13 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 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: 4.18
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.65
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.71
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) | 4.18 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 46% in California; top 33% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.65 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 28% in California; top 42% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.71 | 3.90 | 3.50 | bottom 47% in California; top 33% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.38 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 48% in California; bottom 48% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 44.8 | 36.7 | 45.8 | bottom 25% in California; top 50% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 33.3 | 38.1 | 42.9 | top 40% in California; top 33% 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 4.13, RN 0.64, weekend 3.66.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.13 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 4/5.
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: 4/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Pioneer House. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Armaan, Fnu | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/24/2023 |
| Armaan, Fnu | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/24/2023 |
| Cheema, Chandandeep | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Costello, Daniel | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/09/2024 |
| Cypress Healthcare Group LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/24/2023 |
| Cypress Healthcare Group LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/24/2023 |
| Framo, Felipe | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/04/2024 |
| Jackson, Matthew | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/24/2023 |
| Jackson, Matthew | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/24/2023 |
| Jackson, Robert | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/24/2023 |
| Jackson, Robert | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/24/2023 |
| Mala, Sandhya | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/25/2024 |
| Sanofsky, Jack | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/24/2023 |
| Sanofsky, Jack | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/24/2023 |
| Singson, Ramon | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/15/2024 |
| Smith, Kimberle | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/24/2023 |
| White, Zekaia | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/15/2024 |
All 17 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 Cypress Healthcare Group — 13 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.
- Saylor Lane Healthcare Center — Sacramento, CA · overall 4/5
- Sherwood Healthcare Center — Sacramento, CA · overall 5/5
- Woodside Healthcare Center — Sacramento, CA · overall 5/5
- Asbury Park Nursing and Rehabilitation Center — Sacramento, CA · overall 3/5
- Auburn Ravine Healthcare Center — Auburn, CA · overall 5/5
- College Oak Nursing and Rehabilitation Center — Sacramento, CA · overall 3/5
- Fair Oaks Healthcare Center — Fair Oaks, CA · overall 3/5
- Gold Country Health Center — Placerville, CA · overall 4/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 12 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.
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "How do you prevent bedsores for residents who can't move themselves, and how often are at-risk residents repositioned?"
- "Before a resident is discharged or transferred, how do you make sure the new place can actually meet their needs?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "How many aides are on each shift, and how do you make sure every resident gets timely help with bathing, dressing, and meals?"
- "How do you monitor residents' weight and eating, and what happens when someone starts losing weight?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
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 17 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 45 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mid-Town Oaks Post-Acute | 1.6 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| River Bend Nursing Center | 2.2 mi | West Sacramento, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| McKinley Park Care Center | 2.2 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Saylor Lane Healthcare Center | 2.3 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| University Post-Acute Rehab | 2.5 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Advanced Health Care of Sacramento | 2.7 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Cedarwood Post Acute | 3.2 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Sherwood Healthcare Center | 3.3 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Asbury Park Nursing and Rehabilitation Center | 4.9 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Woodside Healthcare Center | 4.9 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Capital Post Acute | 5.2 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Bridgewood Post Acute | 5.3 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Sacramento, CA — 37 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Rancho Seco Care Center — Galt, CA · overall —/5abuseSFF
- River City Post Acute — Carmichael, CA · overall 1/5abuse
- River Pointe Post-Acute — Carmichael, CA · overall 1/5abuse
- Sacramento Post-Acute — Sacramento, CA · overall 4/5
- Whitney Oaks Care Center — Carmichael, 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 555542.