Pittsburg Skilled Nursing Center

Name: Pittsburg Skilled Nursing Center
Address: 535 SCHOOL STREET, Pittsburg, CA, 94565, US
Telephone: 9254323831

535 School Street, Pittsburg, CA 94565 · Contra Costa County · 49 certified beds · avg 40 residents/day · certified since Jan 10, 1974

2/5

Health inspection rating (on-site)

Serious findings on record

$10,793

Fines, last 3 years

4.13

Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 1/5

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 (39)

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
Jun 3, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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
Aug 28, 2024	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The facility did not have a registered nurse on duty at least 8 hours a day, or did not have a registered nurse serving full-time as director of nursing.
Aug 28, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care.
Aug 28, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
Aug 28, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Aug 28, 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.
Aug 28, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Aug 28, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Aug 28, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility was not managed in a way that uses its money, staff, and resources effectively and efficiently to care for residents.
Aug 28, 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.
Aug 28, 2024	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.
Aug 28, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand.
Aug 28, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not enter each resident's assessment information into the required format and send it to the state within 7 days of completing the assessment, as the rules require.
Aug 28, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives.
Aug 28, 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.
Aug 28, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Aug 28, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not have a policy covering how food brought in by family and visitors is used and stored safely.
Aug 28, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Aug 28, 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.
Oct 10, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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. · from a complaint
Jun 24, 2022	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not give residents proper notice about what Medicare or Medicaid covers, or about charges the resident might owe for services that aren't covered.
Jun 24, 2022	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives.
Jun 24, 2022	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Jun 24, 2022	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.
Jun 24, 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.
Jun 24, 2022	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Jun 24, 2022	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Jun 24, 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.
Jun 24, 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.
Jun 24, 2022	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment.
Jun 24, 2022	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not coordinate resident assessments with the state's pre-admission screening program for mental illness and intellectual disabilities, or failed to refer residents for the special services they need.
Jun 24, 2022	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Jun 24, 2022	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide or arrange dental services for its residents. Nursing homes are responsible for making sure residents can get dental care.
Jun 24, 2022	B · Minimal risk, repeated	The facility did not post its nurse staffing information every day. Nursing homes must publicly display how many nurses and aides are on duty each day.
Jun 24, 2022	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.
Sep 12, 2019	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection.
Sep 12, 2019	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it.
Sep 12, 2019	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Sep 12, 2019	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.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (15 → 18).

Year	Citations	Worst severity that year
2019	4	E
2022	15	E
2023	1	E
2024	18	F
2025	1	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)

1 fine totaling $10,793.

Date	Type	Amount / length
Mar 6, 2025	Fine	$10,793

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)	4.13	4.31	3.95	top 50% in California; top 35% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours	0.37	0.61	0.69	bottom 25% in California; bottom 18% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing	3.85	3.90	3.50	top 42% in California; top 27% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)	0.33	0.51	0.48	bottom 42% in California; bottom 39% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)	37.5	36.7	45.8	bottom 46% in California; top 30% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)	0.0	38.1	42.9	—

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 3.97, RN 0.36, weekend 3.70. 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: 1/5 · long-stay residents: 1/5 · short-stay residents: —/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Corporation

Owner / manager	Type	Role	Stake	Since
Leung, Allen	Individual	5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest	34%	01/01/2015
Leung, Allen	Individual	W-2 Managing Employee	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2015
Leung, Allen	Individual	Corporate Director	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2015
Leung, Allen	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2015
Leung, Allen	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2015
Leung, Belinda	Individual	W-2 Managing Employee	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2015
Leung, Belinda	Individual	Corporate Director	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2015
Leung, Belinda	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2015
Leung, Belinda	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2015
Leung, Kenneth	Individual	W-2 Managing Employee	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2015
Leung, Kenneth	Individual	Corporate Director	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2015
Leung, Kenneth	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2015
Leung, Kenneth	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2015

Questions to ask on your visit

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

"Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
"How many hours a day is a registered nurse physically in the building, including weekends?"
"How do you record and honor each resident's treatment wishes and advance directives, and how do staff know about them?"
"Can we tour the resident rooms, bathrooms, and common areas today, including areas not on the usual tour route?"
"Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
"What alternatives do you try before using bed rails, and how do you involve families in that decision?"
"What is your current medication error rate, and what have you changed to bring errors down?"
"Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
"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
Diamond Ridge Healthcare Center	1.1 mi	Pittsburg, CA	★★☆☆☆	2/5
Delta View Post Acute	3.9 mi	Antioch, CA	★★★★☆	3/5
Lone Tree Post Acute	6.1 mi	Antioch, CA	★★★★☆	3/5
Stonebrook Post Acute	6.3 mi	Concord, CA	★★★★☆	4/5
Diablo Valley Post Acute	7.9 mi	Concord, CA	★★☆☆☆	1/5	abuse
Willow Pass Healthcare Center	8.1 mi	Concord, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5
Bayberry Skilled Nursing & Healthcare Center	9.2 mi	Concord, CA	★★★★☆	3/5
Concord Post Acute	9.3 mi	Concord, CA	★★☆☆☆	2/5	abuse
Shadelands Post Acute	9.8 mi	Walnut Creek, CA	★★★★☆	3/5
Pleasant Hill Post Acute	11.5 mi	Pleasant Hill, CA	★★★★☆	3/5
Legacy Post Acute Care	11.6 mi	Martinez, CA	★★★★★	4/5
La Casa via Transitional Care Center	11.9 mi	Walnut Creek, CA	★★★★★	4/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Pittsburg →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 055677.

The Care File

Visit checklist — Pittsburg Skilled Nursing Center

535 School Street, Pittsburg, CA 94565 · 9254323831

Health inspection rating 2/5 · CMS overall 1/5· Fines (3y): $10,793

Questions for the administrator:

☐ "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
☐ "How many hours a day is a registered nurse physically in the building, including weekends?"
☐ "How do you record and honor each resident's treatment wishes and advance directives, and how do staff know about them?"
☐ "Can we tour the resident rooms, bathrooms, and common areas today, including areas not on the usual tour route?"
☐ "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
☐ "What alternatives do you try before using bed rails, and how do you involve families in that decision?"
☐ "What is your current medication error rate, and what have you changed to bring errors down?"
☐ "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
☐ "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?"

While you're there, notice:

☐ Smell and cleanliness in hallways, not just the lobby
☐ How staff speak to residents; call lights answered promptly
☐ Residents up, dressed, and engaged (visit mealtimes and a weekend if you can)

Data: CMS Provider Data Catalog, version 2026-08-01 · CCN 055677 · Verify at medicare.gov/care-compare · Printed from The Care File (thecarefile.com)