Ridgeway Post Acute
523 Hayes Lane, Petaluma, CA 94952 · Sonoma County · 79 certified beds · avg 75 residents/day · certified since Apr 18, 1997
Part of chain: PACS GROUP (274 facilities, chain avg rating 2.9★)
1/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
3
Serious findings on record
$32,280
Fines, last 3 years
4.15
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
Health inspection rating: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · 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.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Apr 16, 2025 · F-0687 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not provide proper foot care for residents. Foot care includes routine care like nail trimming and attention to foot problems, which matter greatly for older adults.
Why it matters: Neglected feet can develop painful sores and infections, especially dangerous for residents with diabetes.
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: May 7, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Aug 13, 2024 · F-0552 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand.
Why it matters: Residents can't make good decisions about their care if they don't know what's happening with their health.
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: Sep 13, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Aug 13, 2024 · F-0658 · triggered by a complaint
The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Why it matters: Care that falls below professional standards can directly harm a resident's health and recovery.
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: Sep 13, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
All citations in the current public record (57)
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 18, 2026 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. · from a complaint |
| Dec 16, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Dec 16, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide required paperwork or notices about a resident's needs, their right to appeal a transfer or discharge, or the facility's bed-hold policy (how long a bed is saved during a hospital stay). · from a complaint |
| Aug 8, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint |
| Jun 16, 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. · from a complaint |
| Jun 3, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint |
| Apr 16, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual harm, one-off | The facility did not provide proper foot care for residents. Foot care includes routine care like nail trimming and attention to foot problems, which matter greatly for older adults. · from a complaint |
| Apr 16, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint |
| Apr 16, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · from a complaint |
| Mar 12, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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 |
| Mar 12, 2025 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly. · from a complaint |
| Jan 22, 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 |
| Sep 27, 2024 | F · Potential for harm, 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. |
| Sep 27, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Sep 27, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not honor residents' right to form and take part in resident or family groups, such as a resident council. |
| Sep 27, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not make its inspection results easy for residents to see, or made it hard for residents to contact advocacy agencies like the ombudsman. |
| Sep 27, 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. |
| Sep 27, 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. |
| Sep 27, 2024 | 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. |
| Sep 27, 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. |
| Sep 27, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. |
| Sep 27, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. |
| Sep 27, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not have a policy covering how food brought in by family and visitors is used and stored safely. |
| Sep 27, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. |
| Sep 27, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. |
| Sep 27, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives. |
| Aug 13, 2024 | ▲ G · Actual 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. · from a complaint |
| Aug 13, 2024 | ▲ G · Actual 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 |
| Aug 13, 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 |
| Feb 1, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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 |
| Feb 1, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. · from a complaint |
| Feb 1, 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 |
| Nov 21, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. · from a complaint |
| Nov 21, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not give the resident or their representative written notice of how long it would hold the resident's bed during a hospital stay or approved leave. · from a complaint |
| Nov 21, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not let a resident return after a hospital stay or approved leave that lasted longer than the facility's bed-hold policy allowed. Residents generally have the right to come back to the next available bed. · from a complaint |
| Nov 20, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Aug 12, 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. |
| Aug 12, 2022 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. |
| Aug 12, 2022 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. |
| Aug 12, 2022 | F · Potential for harm, 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. |
| Aug 12, 2022 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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 12, 2022 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not treat residents with respect and dignity, or did not let them keep and use their own personal belongings. |
| Aug 12, 2022 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not give residents important notices in a format and language they can understand — for example, translated documents or accessible formats for those with vision or hearing loss. |
| Aug 12, 2022 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly. |
| Aug 12, 2022 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Aug 12, 2022 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Aug 12, 2022 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. |
| Aug 12, 2022 | 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. |
| Aug 12, 2022 | 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. |
| Aug 12, 2022 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. |
| Aug 12, 2022 | 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. |
| Aug 12, 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. |
| Aug 12, 2022 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide proper foot care for residents. Foot care includes routine care like nail trimming and attention to foot problems, which matter greatly for older adults. |
| Aug 12, 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. |
| Aug 12, 2022 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. |
| Jul 12, 2019 | 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. |
| Jul 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 decreased between the last two inspection cycles (19 → 14).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 2 | 0 | D |
| 2022 | 19 | 0 | F |
| 2023 | 4 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 20 | 2 | G ▲ |
| 2025 | 11 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2026 | 1 | 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)
3 fines totaling $32,280.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Apr 16, 2025 | Fine | $16,244 |
| Aug 13, 2024 | Fine | $8,018 |
| Aug 13, 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) | 4.15 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 48% in California; top 34% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.41 | 0.61 | 0.69 | bottom 36% in California; bottom 24% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.65 | 3.90 | 3.50 | bottom 43% in California; top 35% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.35 | 0.51 | 0.48 | bottom 45% in California; bottom 41% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 36.4 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 50% in California; top 27% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 42.9 | 38.1 | 42.9 | bottom 39% in California; bottom 49% 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 4.10, RN 0.41, weekend 3.61. 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: 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Providence Group INC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 01/11/2023 |
| Apt, Frederick | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Hancock, Mark | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Jergensen, Joshua | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Mitchell, John | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Picetti, Dominic | Individual | Contracted Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2024 |
| Tucker, Riley | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2023 |
| Tucker, Riley | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2023 |
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "How is routine foot care handled here, and does a podiatrist visit regularly?"
- "How do you explain health changes and treatment options to residents and their families?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
- "What written notices do we get before any transfer or discharge, and what is your bed-hold policy?"
- "Can we tour the resident rooms, bathrooms, and common areas today, including areas not on the usual tour route?"
- "Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
- "How many aides are on each shift, and how do you make sure every resident gets timely help with bathing, dressing, and meals?"
- "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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Petaluma Post-Acute Rehabilitation | 0.1 mi | Petaluma, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Hillcrest Post Acute | 0.1 mi | Petaluma, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| North Bay Post Acute | 0.7 mi | Petaluma, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Vineyard Post Acute | 2.6 mi | Petaluma, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Novato Healthcare Center | 9.5 mi | Novato, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Valley of the Moon Post Acute | 10.8 mi | Sonoma, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Broadway Villa Post Acute | 11.0 mi | Sonoma, CA | ★★★★★ | 3/5 | |
| Sonoma Post Acute | 11.3 mi | Sonoma, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Northvine Postacute Care | 14.3 mi | Santa Rosa, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Apple Valley Post-Acute Rehab | 14.8 mi | Sebastopol, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Santa Rosa Post Acute | 15.2 mi | Santa Rosa, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Blue Oak Post-Acute | 15.4 mi | Santa Rosa, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555703.