Redwood Grove Post Acute

Name: Redwood Grove Post Acute
Address: 2990 SOQUEL AVENUE, Santa Cruz, CA, 95062, US
Telephone: 8314799000

2990 Soquel Avenue, Santa Cruz, CA 95062 · Santa Cruz County · 144 certified beds · avg 126 residents/day · certified since Jun 1, 1970 · 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 →

3/5

Health inspection rating (on-site)

Serious findings on record

Fines, last 3 years

5.28

Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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

Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 3/5

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)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, facility-wide · Feb 23, 2022 · F-0812

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.

Why it matters: Unsafe food handling is one of the most common causes of food poisoning, which can be dangerous for frail residents.

Severity (L): A life-threatening or extremely dangerous situation existed throughout the facility. The single most serious citation CMS can issue.

Corrected: Apr 19, 2022 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (42)

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 8, 2026	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. · from a complaint
Jun 8, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not notify the appropriate authorities when a resident with a mental disorder or intellectual disability had a significant change in condition. · from a complaint
Jun 5, 2026	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. · from a complaint
Dec 1, 2025	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
Mar 12, 2025	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. · from a complaint
Feb 6, 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.
Feb 6, 2025	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.
Nov 21, 2024	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. · from a complaint
Oct 9, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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
Sep 4, 2024	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	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · from a complaint
Jun 3, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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. · from a complaint
Feb 23, 2022	▲ L · Immediate jeopardy, facility-wide	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 23, 2022	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service.
Feb 23, 2022	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The facility did not have a policy covering how food brought in by family and visitors is used and stored safely.
Feb 23, 2022	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
Feb 23, 2022	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors.
Feb 23, 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 23, 2022	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Feb 23, 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.
Feb 23, 2022	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Feb 23, 2022	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.
Feb 23, 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 23, 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 23, 2022	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.
Feb 23, 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.
Feb 23, 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.
Jul 17, 2019	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.
Jul 17, 2019	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.
Jul 17, 2019	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.
Jul 17, 2019	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate.
Jul 17, 2019	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Jul 17, 2019	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.
Jul 17, 2019	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.
Jul 17, 2019	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide necessary behavioral health care and services — support for residents' mental and emotional wellbeing, including conditions like depression and anxiety.
Jul 17, 2019	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Jul 17, 2019	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.
Jul 17, 2019	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.
Jul 17, 2019	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Jul 17, 2019	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide special eating equipment and utensils — like adaptive cups or easy-grip silverware — for residents who need them, along with appropriate help at meals.
Jul 17, 2019	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.
Jul 17, 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 decreased between the last two inspection cycles (15 → 2).

Year	Citations	Serious (G–L)	Worst severity that year
2019	15	0	E
2022	15	1	L ▲
2024	5	0	E
2025	4	0	E
2026	3	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.

Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)

No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.

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)	5.28	4.31	3.95	top 10% in California; top 10% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours	0.92	0.61	0.69	top 13% in California; top 19% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing	4.93	3.90	3.50	top 7% in California; top 7% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)	0.69	0.51	0.48	top 15% in California; top 16% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)	56.0	36.7	45.8	bottom 5% in California; bottom 23% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)	64.0	38.1	42.9	bottom 11% in California; bottom 16% 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 4.70, RN 0.82, weekend 4.39. Staffing rating: 4/5.

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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / manager	Type	Role	Stake	Since
Nichol, Joshua	Individual	5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest	50%	10/01/2024
Suchomel, Scott	Individual	5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest	50%	10/01/2024
Penyacsek, Matthew	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	10/01/2024

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 did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
"Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
"How do you coordinate with state agencies for residents with mental health conditions or intellectual disabilities?"
"Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
"Before a resident is discharged or transferred, how do you make sure the new place can actually meet their needs?"
"How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
"Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
"Can I see the actual room my family member would live in before we decide?"
"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
Santa Cruz Post Acute	0.8 mi	Santa Cruz, CA	★★☆☆☆	1/5
Pacific Coast Manor	1.3 mi	Capitola, CA	★★★★★	5/5
Driftwood Healthcare Center - Santa Cruz	1.5 mi	Santa Cruz, CA	★★★★☆	3/5
Watsonville Nursing Center	12.5 mi	Watsonville, CA	★★★☆☆	3/5
Watsonville Post Acute Center	12.5 mi	Watsonville, CA	★★★★★	4/5
Manresa Healthcare Center	13.0 mi	Watsonville, CA	★★★★☆	4/5
Vasona Creek Healthcare Center	16.8 mi	Los Gatos, CA	★★☆☆☆	3/5
The Terraces of Los Gatos	17.2 mi	Los Gatos, CA	★★★★★	5/5
Stonebrook Health and Rehabilitation	18.0 mi	Los Gatos, CA	★★★★★	4/5
Almaden Health and Rehabilitation Center	18.0 mi	San Jose, CA	★★★★☆	3/5
Woodlands Healthcare Center	18.4 mi	Los Gatos, CA	★★★★★	5/5
Saratoga Retirement Community Health Center	18.4 mi	Saratoga, CA	★★★★★	5/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Santa Cruz →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 055017.

The Care File

Visit checklist — Redwood Grove Post Acute

2990 Soquel Avenue, Santa Cruz, CA 95062 · 8314799000

Health inspection rating 3/5 · CMS overall 3/5· Fines (3y): $0

Most serious findings on record:

▲ Feb 23, 2022 (F-0812, Immediate jeopardy, facility-wide): 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.

Questions for the administrator:

☐ "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
☐ "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
☐ "How do you coordinate with state agencies for residents with mental health conditions or intellectual disabilities?"
☐ "Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
☐ "Before a resident is discharged or transferred, how do you make sure the new place can actually meet their needs?"
☐ "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
☐ "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
☐ "Can I see the actual room my family member would live in before we decide?"
☐ "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 055017 · Verify at medicare.gov/care-compare · Printed from The Care File (thecarefile.com)