How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
San Francisco Post Acute
5767 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94112 (opens Google Maps) · San Francisco County · (415) 584-3294· 53 certified beds · avg 49 residents/day · certified since Sep 1, 1977 · 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★)
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Dec 12, 2024
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.42
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: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 5/5 · 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 24 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
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
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
View all 24 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 12, 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 |
| Dec 12, 2024 | 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 12, 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 |
| Dec 12, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility allowed residents to lose the ability to do daily activities — like bathing, dressing, and eating — when there was no medical reason for the decline. Good care helps residents keep the abilities they have. · F-0676 |
| Dec 12, 2024 | 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. · F-0758 |
| Mar 28, 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 |
| Oct 6, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. · F-0801 |
| Oct 6, 2023 | 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 |
| Oct 6, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Oct 6, 2023 | 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 |
| Oct 6, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. · F-0814 |
| Oct 6, 2023 | 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 |
| Oct 6, 2023 | 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 |
| Oct 6, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives. · F-0806 |
| Oct 6, 2023 | 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 |
| Oct 6, 2023 | 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. · F-0692 |
| Oct 6, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility used bed rails without first trying safer alternatives, or without assessing the resident's safety risk, discussing the risks and benefits with the resident or family, getting consent, and installing the rails correctly. · F-0700 |
| Oct 6, 2023 | 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 |
| Oct 6, 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. · F-0758 |
| Oct 6, 2023 | 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 |
| Oct 14, 2021 | 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 |
| Oct 14, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0808 |
| Oct 14, 2021 | 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 |
| Oct 14, 2021 | 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. · F-0692 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (14 → 5).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2021
All citations: 4
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 14
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 6
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 4 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 14 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 6 | 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)
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: 3.42
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.44
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.12
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) | 3.42 | 4.31 | 3.95 | bottom 7% in California; bottom 32% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.44 | 0.61 | 0.69 | bottom 42% in California; bottom 28% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.12 | 3.90 | 3.50 | bottom 8% in California; bottom 38% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.49 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 32% in California; top 34% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 35.5 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 48% in California; top 25% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 60.0 | 38.1 | 42.9 | bottom 16% in California; bottom 22% 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 4.35, RN 0.56, weekend 3.98.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.35 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: 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 San Francisco 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Providence Group North LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 06/20/2015 |
| Apt, Frederick | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Hancock, Mark | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/10/2021 |
| Jergensen, Joshua | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Mitchell, John | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Portier, David | Individual | Contracted Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2019 |
| Samia, Neil | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/01/2022 |
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 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.
- San Jacinto Valley Post Acute — Hemet, CA · overall 5/5
- San Joaquin Nursing Center and Rehabilitation Cent — Bakersfield, CA · overall 3/5
- Santa Cruz Post Acute — Santa Cruz, CA · overall 2/5
- Santa Rosa Post Acute — Santa Rosa, CA · overall 3/5
- Sequoia Transitional Care — Porterville, CA · overall 4/5
- Shadelands Post Acute — Walnut Creek, CA · overall 4/5
- Sherwood Oaks Post Acute — Thousand Oaks, CA · overall 3/5abuse
- Sierra Valley Rehab Center — Porterville, CA · overall 4/5
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.
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "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?"
- "How do you help residents maintain their daily living skills, and how do you measure whether it's working?"
- "What is your approach to psychiatric medications — how do you try non-drug options first and work to reduce doses over time?"
- "If my family member goes to the hospital, how long will you hold their bed, and will we get that in writing?"
- "Do you have a qualified dietician on staff, and how involved are they in each resident's nutrition plan?"
- "How is your kitchen staffed, and have meals ever been delayed because of staffing?"
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 36% 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 86 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jewish Home & Rehab Center D/P SNF | 1.7 mi | San Francisco, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Ahmc Seton Medical Center | 2.2 mi | Daly City, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Laguna Honda Hospital & Rehabilitation Ctr D/P SNF | 2.6 mi | San Francisco, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Golden Heights Healthcare | 2.9 mi | Daly City, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Golden Pavilion Healthcare | 2.9 mi | Daly City, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| The Avenues Transitional Care Center | 3.2 mi | San Francisco, CA | ★★★★★ | 3/5 | |
| Lawton Skilled Nursing & Rehabilitation Center | 3.4 mi | San Francisco, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hosp & Trauma SNF | 3.9 mi | San Francisco, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| California Pacific Medical Ctr- Davies Campus Hosp | 4.3 mi | San Francisco, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Hayes Convalescent Hospital | 4.5 mi | San Francisco, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Pacifica Nursing and Rehabilitation Center | 4.6 mi | Pacifica, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| San Francisco Health Care | 4.6 mi | San Francisco, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in San Francisco, CA — 18 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- San Francisco Towers — San Francisco, CA · overall 5/5
- Sequoias San Francisco Convalescent Hospital — San Francisco, CA · overall 4/5
- St. Anne's Home — San Francisco, CA · overall 3/5
- Victorian Post Acute — San Francisco, CA · overall 5/5
- Central Gardens Post Acute — San Francisco, 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 056449.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).