California ›Stockton

Riverwood Health Care

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

5320 Carrington Circle, Stockton, CA 95210 (opens Google Maps) · San Joaquin County · (209) 473-3004· 99 certified beds · avg 90 residents/day · certified since Apr 1, 1992 · 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: ASPEN SKILLED HEALTHCARE (35 facilities, chain avg rating 3.7★)

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Sep 12, 2025
2
Serious findings on record
most recent Feb 19, 2026
$47,637
Fines, last 3 years
4.41
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · 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.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Feb 19, 2026 · F-0684 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.

Why it matters: Care that strays from doctor's orders or ignores the resident's wishes can lead to declining health and avoidable harm.

Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: Mar 16, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jan 22, 2025 · 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): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

Corrected: Feb 22, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 38 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

  1. D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated

    The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint F-0584

  2. 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

  3. D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated

    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

View all 38 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.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Jul 1, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint · F-0584
Jul 1, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Mar 18, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Mar 18, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · from a complaint · F-0610
Mar 18, 2026C · Potential for minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not follow the rules about disclosing who owns it, or did not tell the state agency about changes in ownership or key administrative staff. · from a complaint · F-0844
Feb 19, 2026▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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
Feb 19, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Sep 12, 2025F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe 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
Sep 12, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584
Sep 12, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Sep 12, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755
Sep 12, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Sep 12, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0550
Sep 12, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Sep 12, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · F-0583
Sep 12, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
May 14, 2025F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · from a complaint · F-0583
Jan 22, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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
Oct 31, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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 · F-0658
Oct 31, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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 · F-0755
Oct 31, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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. · from a complaint · F-0761
Sep 23, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Sep 23, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Jul 25, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Jul 25, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · F-0760
Jul 25, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Apr 16, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0658
Jun 18, 2021E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not honor residents' right to make their own choices about their daily lives, such as when to wake up, what to eat, or how to spend their time. · F-0561
Jun 18, 2021E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not honor residents' right to receive the visitors they choose, at the times they choose. · F-0563
Jun 18, 2021E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Jun 18, 2021D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0582
Jun 18, 2021D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedWhen a resident had a planned discharge, the facility did not make sure the necessary information was communicated to the resident and to the doctors or facility taking over their care. · F-0661
Jun 18, 2021D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0687
Jun 18, 2021D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · F-0697
Jun 18, 2021D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755
Jun 18, 2021D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Jun 18, 2021D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Jun 18, 2021D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 → 9).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2021
All citations: 11
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 9
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 11
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2026
All citations: 7
Serious citations (G–L): 1

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2021110E
202490E
2025111G ▲
202671G ▲

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)

How to file a complaint about care →

12 fines totaling $47,637.

Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.

DateTypeAmount / length
Nov 20, 2023Fine$4,587
Nov 13, 2023Fine$4,587
Nov 6, 2023Fine$4,587
Oct 17, 2023Fine$4,587
Oct 10, 2023Fine$4,587
Oct 2, 2023Fine$4,587
Sep 25, 2023Fine$4,235
Sep 18, 2023Fine$3,882
Sep 11, 2023Fine$3,529
Sep 5, 2023Fine$3,176
Aug 28, 2023Fine$2,823
Aug 21, 2023Fine$2,470

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

What these staffing numbers mean →

Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
This facilityCalifornia averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 4.41
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.54
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 4.07
California average: 3.90
U.S. average: 3.50

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

MeasureThis facilityCalifornia avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)4.414.313.95top 33% in California; top 26% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.540.610.69top 40% in California; bottom 44% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing4.073.903.50top 29% in California; top 21% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.440.510.48top 39% in California; top 41% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)26.336.745.8top 20% in California; top 9% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)50.038.142.9bottom 29% in California; bottom 39% 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 4.19, RN 0.51, weekend 3.87.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.19 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 4/5.

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

Costs & payment

Price evidence · separate from quality

No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Riverwood Health Care. 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 / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Ascc, LLCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%01/27/2014
Bradshaw, PeterIndividualIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE07/07/2023
Elsner, EricIndividualIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE01/27/2014
Kirkwood, JaredIndividualIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2019
Orgill, CraigIndividualIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2019
Parti, RajeshIndividualIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE01/27/2014
Parti, ShrutyIndividualIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE01/27/2014
Paxman, MarcusIndividualIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2022
Samuelott LLCOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest7%06/25/2013
Ascc, LLCOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/27/2014
Ascc, LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/27/2014
Aspen Healthcare Services LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2023
Bradshaw, JeffreyIndividualIndividual Is an Owner, Partner or Trustee of Any ADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE06/09/2026
Bradshaw, JeffreyIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2023
Brady, VernIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2023
Case, RyanIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2023
Deperalta, JennyIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE09/29/2022
Deperalta, JennyIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE09/29/2022
Goring, ReginaldIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE03/13/2017
Goring, ReginaldIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE03/13/2017

Showing 20 of 31 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 11 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.

Other facilities in the same chain

CMS lists this facility under the chain Aspen Skilled Healthcare — 35 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.

Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 34 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.

Questions to ask on your visit

Full visit checklist →

Print visit checklist

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

  • "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
  • "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
  • "Can we tour the resident rooms, bathrooms, and common areas today, including areas not on the usual tour route?"
  • "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
  • "If someone reports suspected abuse or neglect here, what happens in the first 24 hours?"
  • "Who owns this facility, and has ownership or top management changed recently?"
  • "What does the care plan for a brand-new resident cover in the first 48 hours, and who writes it?"
  • "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"

Also worth asking anywhere

  • "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
  • "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
  • "CMS reports 26% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
  • "The ownership record on file lists 31 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
  • "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"

Nearby facilities (12 closest of 23 within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Oak Grove Post Acute1.0 miStockton, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5abuse
Clearwater Healthcare Center1.3 miStockton, CA★★☆☆☆1/5
Fulton Gardens Post Acute, LLC1.4 miStockton, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Delta Oaks Post Acute1.7 miStockton, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5abuse
Noble Care Center1.9 miStockton, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5abuse
Crestwood Manor - 1042.0 miStockton, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Brookside Care Center2.1 miStockton, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5
Hampton Post Acute2.1 miStockton, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5abuse
Good Samaritan Rehab and Care Center2.7 miStockton, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Creekside Center2.9 miStockton, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Lincoln Square Post Acute Care3.0 miStockton, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Crystal Creek Post-Acute3.9 miStockton, CA★★☆☆☆2/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

Other facilities in the same county

CMS records place this facility in San Joaquin, CA — 24 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.

Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.

All facilities in Stockton →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555496.

This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).

Your research

Viewed & saved homes

Kept in this browser tab for this session. Choose to remember them only on a device you trust. Opening a record or comparison sends its usual page request.

Selected for comparison

Recently viewed

Prices entered in a cost worksheet stay on that page and are not saved. Privacy details