How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Rolling Hills Care Center
2108 Stillman, Selma, CA 93662 (opens Google Maps) · Fresno County · (559) 896-4990· 34 certified beds · avg 32 residents/day · certified since Jun 17, 2014 · 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: AJC HEALTHCARE (14 facilities, chain avg rating 2.2★)
2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected May 22, 2026
1
Serious findings on record
most recent May 6, 2024
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.45
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: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5 · 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 · May 6, 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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · May 6, 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): 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: Jun 25, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 35 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
The facility did not have a working program to monitor how antibiotics are used. Tracking antibiotic use helps make sure these drugs are given only when needed and remain effective. F-0881
The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. F-0689
View all 35 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 |
|---|---|---|
| May 22, 2026 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| May 22, 2026 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not have a working program to monitor how antibiotics are used. Tracking antibiotic use helps make sure these drugs are given only when needed and remain effective. · F-0881 |
| May 22, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| May 22, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not post its nurse staffing information every day. Nursing homes must publicly display how many nurses and aides are on duty each day. · F-0732 |
| May 22, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0803 |
| May 22, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. · F-0552 |
| May 22, 2026 | 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 |
| May 22, 2026 | 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 |
| May 22, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems. · F-0756 |
| May 22, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0757 |
| May 22, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. · F-0801 |
| May 22, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804 |
| May 22, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not prepare and serve food in a form that meets each resident's individual needs — for example, chopped, pureed, or softened food for residents with chewing or swallowing problems. · F-0805 |
| May 22, 2026 | 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. · F-0842 |
| May 22, 2026 | 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 |
| Nov 25, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service. · F-0802 |
| Nov 25, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Nov 25, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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. · F-0912 |
| Nov 25, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests. · F-0925 |
| Nov 25, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Nov 25, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Nov 25, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Nov 25, 2024 | 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 |
| Nov 25, 2024 | 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. · F-0584 |
| Nov 25, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | When 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 |
| Sep 20, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0550 |
| May 6, 2024 | ▲ G · Actual 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 14, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 14, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842 |
| Jan 14, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0585 |
| Jan 14, 2024 | 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 |
| Jan 14, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0757 |
| Jan 14, 2024 | 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 14, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. · F-0908 |
| Jan 14, 2024 | C · Potential for minimal harm, widespread | 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. · F-0912 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (10 → 15).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2024
All citations: 20
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2026
All citations: 15
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 20 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2026 | 15 | 0 | F |
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: 3.45
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.32
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.21
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) | 3.45 | 4.31 | 3.95 | bottom 9% in California; bottom 34% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.32 | 0.61 | 0.69 | bottom 15% in California; bottom 12% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.21 | 3.90 | 3.50 | bottom 11% in California; bottom 42% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.27 | 0.51 | 0.48 | bottom 26% in California; bottom 26% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 40.0 | 36.7 | 45.8 | bottom 38% in California; top 36% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | — | 38.1 | 42.9 | — |
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 4.25, RN 0.39, weekend 3.95.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.25 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 2/5.
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 Rolling Hills Care Center. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chesley, Aaron | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 02/01/2021 |
| Rolling Hills Care Center Holdings LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 07/17/2019 |
| SWC Ca Opco, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | — | 02/01/2021 |
| Chesley, Aaron | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2021 |
| Cook, Brett | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2021 |
| Gamett, James | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2021 |
| Rolling Hills Care Center Holdings LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/17/2019 |
All 7 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 Ajc Healthcare — 14 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.
- Shasta View Care Center — Red Bluff, CA · overall 1/5SFF
- Valley View Care Center — Delano, CA · overall 2/5abuse
- Vineyards at Fowler — Fowler, CA · overall 2/5
- Almond View Care Center — Williams, CA · overall 3/5
- Brookside Care Center — Stockton, CA · overall 1/5
- Evergreen Care Center — Fresno, CA · overall 3/5
- Feather River Care Center — Oroville, CA · overall 1/5abuse
- Fowler Care Center — Fowler, CA · overall 3/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 13 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.
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "Who oversees antibiotic use here, and how do you decide when an antibiotic is really needed?"
- "Where do you post your daily staffing numbers, and can I see today's?"
- "Who reviews your menus, and can I see this week's menu and join my family member for a meal?"
- "How do you explain health changes and treatment options to residents and their families?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
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 40% 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 33 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bethel Lutheran Home | 0.7 mi | Selma, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Kingsburg Center | 4.3 mi | Kingsburg, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Fowler Care Center | 4.6 mi | Fowler, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Vineyards at Fowler | 5.0 mi | Fowler, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Manning Gardens Care Center, INC | 8.1 mi | Fresno, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Palm Village Retirement Comm. | 8.9 mi | Reedley, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Cornerstone Care Center | 9.3 mi | Sanger, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Vineyard Care Center | 9.5 mi | Reedley, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Sierra View Homes | 9.6 mi | Reedley, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Grace Healthcare Center | 10.4 mi | Fresno, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| California Home for the Aged | 11.8 mi | Fresno, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Dinuba Healthcare | 12.5 mi | Dinuba, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Fresno, CA — 31 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Sierra Vista Healthcare — Fresno, CA · overall 3/5
- Stonehaven Senior Living — Fresno, CA · overall —/5
- The Terraces at San Joaquin Gardens Village — Fresno, CA · overall 5/5
- Veterans Home of California - Fresno — Fresno, CA · overall 5/5
- Willow Creek Healthcare Center — Clovis, CA · overall 3/5
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 555892.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).