Plum Tree Care Center
2580 Samaritan Drive, San Jose, CA 95124 · Santa Clara County · 76 certified beds · avg 70 residents/day · certified since Dec 18, 1967
Part of chain: GENERATIONS HEALTHCARE (27 facilities, chain avg rating 4.1★)
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
1
Serious findings on record
$8,018
Fines, last 3 years
3.58
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 5/5
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.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Sep 24, 2024 · 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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.
Corrected: Oct 9, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
All citations in the current public record (33)
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 11, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Aug 7, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not let a resident or their legal representative see or buy copies of the resident's own records. · from a complaint |
| Jul 16, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Jul 16, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide or obtain laboratory tests when a doctor ordered them, or did not promptly report the results back to the doctor who ordered them. · from a complaint |
| Mar 28, 2025 | 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. |
| Mar 28, 2025 | 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. |
| Mar 28, 2025 | 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. |
| Mar 28, 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. |
| Mar 28, 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. |
| Mar 28, 2025 | 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. |
| Mar 28, 2025 | 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. |
| Mar 28, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Sep 24, 2024 | ▲ G · Actual harm, one-off | 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 |
| May 31, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| May 31, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. · from a complaint |
| Dec 1, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. |
| Dec 1, 2023 | 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. |
| Dec 1, 2023 | 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. |
| Dec 1, 2023 | 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. |
| Dec 1, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Dec 1, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. |
| Dec 1, 2023 | 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. |
| Dec 1, 2023 | 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. |
| Oct 31, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Feb 11, 2022 | 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 11, 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. |
| Feb 11, 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. |
| Feb 11, 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. |
| Feb 11, 2022 | 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. |
| Feb 11, 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. |
| Feb 11, 2022 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. |
| Feb 11, 2022 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. |
| Feb 11, 2022 | 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. |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (8 → 8).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 9 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 9 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 3 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2025 | 11 | 0 | E |
| 2026 | 1 | 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)
1 fine totaling $8,018.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 24, 2024 | Fine | $8,018 |
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) | 3.58 | 4.31 | 3.95 | bottom 14% in California; bottom 41% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.55 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 39% in California; bottom 45% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.29 | 3.90 | 3.50 | bottom 15% in California; bottom 46% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.50 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 30% in California; top 33% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 42.6 | 36.7 | 45.8 | bottom 31% in California; top 43% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 62.5 | 38.1 | 42.9 | bottom 13% in California; bottom 19% 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 4.53, RN 0.70, weekend 4.16. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bmo Bank National Association | Organization | 5% or Greater Security Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/20/2023 |
| Mastrocola, Lois | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/20/2023 |
| Mastrocola, Lois | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/1998 |
| Mastrocola, Lois | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/1998 |
| Olds, Thomas | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/1998 |
| Olds, Thomas | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/1998 |
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?"
- "Before a resident is discharged or transferred, how do you make sure the new place can actually meet their needs?"
- "If I ask for a copy of my family member's records, how quickly will I get them and what does it cost?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "When a doctor orders lab work, how quickly is it done and how are results communicated back?"
- "How many residents here use oxygen or breathing equipment, and who checks that equipment each shift?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Woodlands Healthcare Center | 0.1 mi | Los Gatos, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Childrens HC Org No Ca -Pediatric Hospital D/P SNF | 0.5 mi | Campbell, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Stonebrook Health and Rehabilitation | 0.5 mi | Los Gatos, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Almaden Health and Rehabilitation Center | 1.3 mi | San Jose, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Camden Postacute Care, INC | 1.3 mi | Campbell, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| The Terraces of Los Gatos | 1.4 mi | Los Gatos, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Vasona Creek Healthcare Center | 2.0 mi | Los Gatos, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Baywood Post Acute | 2.2 mi | Campbell, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Childrens HC Org No Ca Saratoga Pediatric Subacute | 3.1 mi | Saratoga, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Lincoln Glen Skilled Nursing | 3.2 mi | San Jose, CA | ★★★★★ | 3/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 055866.