How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Riverwalk Post Acute
4000 Harrison Street, Riverside, CA 92503 (opens Google Maps) · Riverside County · (951) 785-6060· 146 certified beds · avg 137 residents/day · certified since Apr 22, 1976 · 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 →
Part of chain: PACS GROUP (274 facilities, chain avg rating 2.9★)
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Dec 11, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.75
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: ★★★☆☆3/5 · 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.
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 52 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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. · from a complaint F-0580
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 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. · from a complaint F-0655
View all 52 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 4, 2026 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0580 |
| Mar 4, 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 |
| Jan 2, 2026 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0655 |
| Dec 11, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not conduct and document a facility-wide assessment of what staff, supplies, and resources it needs to care for its residents properly — during everyday operations, nights, weekends, and emergencies. · F-0838 |
| Dec 11, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Dec 11, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not make sure residents actually saw their doctor face-to-face at all required visits. Doctors must examine nursing home residents in person on a regular schedule. · F-0712 |
| Dec 11, 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 11, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Dec 11, 2025 | 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 |
| Dec 11, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Dec 11, 2025 | 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. · F-0658 |
| Dec 11, 2025 | 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. · F-0689 |
| Dec 11, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0693 |
| Dec 11, 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 |
| Dec 11, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Nov 13, 2025 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not let a resident or their legal representative see or buy copies of the resident's own records. · from a complaint · F-0573 |
| Jul 2, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from misuse of their belongings or money — this is called misappropriation, and it includes theft or improper use of a resident's property or funds. · from a complaint · F-0602 |
| Jun 20, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0684 |
| Jun 20, 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 |
| Jun 13, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0684 |
| Apr 14, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0921 |
| Mar 5, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not allow a resident's chosen representative — often a family member or someone with power of attorney — to exercise the resident's rights on their behalf. When a resident can't speak for themselves, their representative steps into that role. · from a complaint · F-0551 |
| Mar 5, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · from a complaint · F-0692 |
| Mar 5, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0758 |
| Dec 24, 2024 | 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 |
| Nov 1, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint · F-0842 |
| Oct 24, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0558 |
| Oct 24, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0684 |
| Oct 24, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0880 |
| Jul 11, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility transferred or discharged a resident without a valid reason, or failed to provide the required documentation and information when moving a resident out. · from a complaint · F-0622 |
| Jul 11, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0623 |
| Jul 11, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0625 |
| Jul 11, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0626 |
| Mar 27, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 · F-0623 |
| Jan 24, 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 |
| Jan 24, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0684 |
| Jan 9, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0558 |
| Oct 26, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint · F-0842 |
| Oct 2, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0558 |
| Sep 15, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0558 |
| Aug 10, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care. · from a complaint · F-0725 |
| Aug 9, 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. · from a complaint · F-0758 |
| Jan 7, 2022 | 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 |
| Jan 7, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0554 |
| Jan 7, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not help a resident get vision and hearing services — such as eye exams, glasses, hearing tests, or hearing aids. · F-0685 |
| Jan 7, 2022 | 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. · F-0689 |
| Jan 7, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. · F-0690 |
| Jan 7, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0695 |
| Jan 7, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · F-0697 |
| Jan 7, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Jan 7, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide timely, quality laboratory tests to meet residents' needs. · F-0770 |
| Jan 7, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (3 → 12).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2022
All citations: 10
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 5
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 13
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 21
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 3
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 10 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 5 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 13 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 21 | 0 | F |
| 2026 | 3 | 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: 3.75
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.23
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.44
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) | 3.75 | 4.31 | 3.95 | bottom 24% in California; bottom 49% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.23 | 0.61 | 0.69 | bottom 3% in California; bottom 4% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.44 | 3.90 | 3.50 | bottom 25% in California; top 45% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.17 | 0.51 | 0.48 | bottom 6% in California; bottom 8% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 28.0 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 24% in California; top 11% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 0.0 | 38.1 | 42.9 | top 1% in California; top 1% 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 4.28, RN 0.27, weekend 3.93.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.28 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.
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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Riverwalk Post Acute. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| Patel, Calvin | Individual | Contracted Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2023 |
| Weese, Ben | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2023 |
All 6 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 Pacs Group — 274 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.
- Rock Creek Care Center — Auburn, CA · overall 5/5
- Roseville Care Center — Roseville, CA · overall 3/5abuse
- Rossmoor Post Acute — Walnut Creek, CA · overall 5/5
- Sacramento Post-Acute — Sacramento, CA · overall 4/5
- Salinas Valley Post Acute — Salinas, CA · overall 3/5
- San Bruno Skilled Nursing — San Bruno, CA · overall 4/5
- San Diego Post-Acute Center — El Cajon, CA · overall 1/5abuse
- San Francisco Post Acute — San Francisco, CA · overall 5/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 273 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.
- "If my family member falls or their condition changes, exactly when and how will I be notified?"
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "What does the care plan for a brand-new resident cover in the first 48 hours, and who writes it?"
- "How do you decide you have enough staff and resources for your resident population, including nights and weekends?"
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "How often does the attending doctor physically see each resident, and how is that documented?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "Can you give me examples of how you adjust daily routines and room setups to fit each resident's preferences?"
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 28% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (12 closest of 68 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Villa Health Care Center | 0.7 mi | Riverside, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Alta Vista Healthcare & Wellness Centre | 0.8 mi | Riverside, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Citrus Grove Post Acute | 1.2 mi | Riverside, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Mission Care Center | 1.4 mi | Riverside, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Arlington Gardens Care Center | 1.5 mi | Riverside, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Extended Care Hospital of Riverside | 2.0 mi | Riverside, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Woodcrest Post Acute & Rehabilitation | 2.0 mi | Riverside, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Palm Terrace Care Center | 3.0 mi | Riverside, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Valencia Gardens Health Care Center | 3.5 mi | Riverside, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Riverside Postacute Care | 3.9 mi | Riverside, CA | —/5 | abuseSFF | |
| Community Care and Rehabilitation Center | 4.0 mi | Riverside, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Community Care on Palm | 5.1 mi | Riverside, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Riverside, CA — 54 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- San Jacinto Valley Post Acute — Hemet, CA · overall 5/5
- Sundance Creek Post Acute — Banning, CA · overall 2/5
- Sunrise Post Acute — Banning, CA · overall 2/5
- Temecula Healthcare Center — Temecula, CA · overall 2/5
- The Bradley Gardens — San Jacinto, CA · overall 3/5
- The Grove Care and Wellness — Riverside, CA · overall 5/5
- The Springs Health and Rehabilitation Center — Murrieta, CA · overall 4/5
- The Springs Healthcare Center at the Carlotta — Palm Desert, CA · overall 5/5
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 555017.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).