Santa Clara Post Acute

991 Clyde Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95054 (opens Google Maps) · Santa Clara County · (408) 988-7667· 201 certified beds · avg 189 residents/day · certified since May 5, 1969 · 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 →

2/5

Health inspection rating (on-site)

inspected Sep 12, 2025

Serious findings on record

most recent Nov 29, 2023

Fines, last 3 years

4.25

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 · Nov 29, 2023 · 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: Dec 13, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · May 3, 2022 · F-0607

The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection.

Why it matters: Without working prevention policies, mistreatment is more likely to happen and less likely to be caught.

Corrected: Jun 16, 2022 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 57 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

Sep 12, 2025F · 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
Sep 12, 2025E · 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
Sep 12, 2025E · 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

View all 57 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
Sep 12, 2025	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
Sep 12, 2025	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
Sep 12, 2025	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
Sep 12, 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
Sep 12, 2025	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
Sep 12, 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
Sep 12, 2025	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility gave residents unnecessary mind-altering (psychotropic) medications, or used drugs in a way that restrained residents by dulling their ability to think, move, or function. · F-0605
Sep 12, 2025	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641
Sep 12, 2025	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not properly complete the required screening (called PASARR) that identifies whether a person entering a nursing home has a mental illness or intellectual disability and needs specialized services. · F-0645
Sep 12, 2025	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
Sep 12, 2025	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · F-0698
Sep 12, 2025	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
Sep 12, 2025	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
Sep 12, 2025	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	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
Sep 12, 2025	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	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
Jul 1, 2025	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · from a complaint · F-0760
Feb 25, 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. · from a complaint · F-0880
Jun 18, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline. · from a complaint · F-0688
May 10, 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
May 10, 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
May 10, 2024	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692
May 10, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641
May 10, 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
May 10, 2024	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
May 10, 2024	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
May 10, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	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 10, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not arrange hospice services for a resident who needed them, or help the resident move to a facility that could arrange hospice. Hospice provides comfort-focused care for people nearing the end of life. · F-0849
May 10, 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. · F-0880
May 2, 2024	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
Apr 24, 2024	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · from a complaint · F-0921
Jan 9, 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
Dec 18, 2023	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
Dec 11, 2023	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not let a resident help develop and carry out their own plan of care — the written roadmap of the services and support they'll receive, built around their personal goals and preferences. · from a complaint · F-0553
Dec 11, 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. · from a complaint · F-0658
Nov 30, 2023	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. · from a complaint · F-0684
Nov 29, 2023	▲ 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
Nov 20, 2023	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	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. · from a complaint · F-0610
Oct 26, 2023	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. · from a complaint · F-0656
Sep 11, 2023	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. · from a complaint · F-0656
May 3, 2022	▲ G · Actual harm, isolated	The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · F-0607
May 3, 2022	F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread	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
May 3, 2022	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
May 3, 2022	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	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
May 3, 2022	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	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 3, 2022	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	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
May 3, 2022	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	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
May 3, 2022	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The 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
May 3, 2022	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804
May 3, 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
May 3, 2022	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
May 3, 2022	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. · F-0550
May 3, 2022	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 3, 2022	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline. · F-0688
May 3, 2022	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · F-0698
May 3, 2022	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not have a policy covering how food brought in by family and visitors is used and stored safely. · F-0813
May 3, 2022	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not make sure its staff were vaccinated for COVID-19 in accordance with the federal requirements in effect at the time. · F-0888
May 3, 2022	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. · F-0921

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (10 → 15).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01

All citationsSerious citations (G–L)

2022

2023

2024

2025

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

Year	Citations	Serious (G–L)	Worst severity that year
2022	18	1	G ▲
2023	8	1	G ▲
2024	14	0	F
2025	17	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)

How to file a complaint about care →

No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.

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)

4.25

4.31

3.95

Registered Nurse hours

0.51

0.61

0.69

Weekend total nurse staffing

4.04

3.90

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)	4.25	4.31	3.95	top 41% in California; top 31% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours	0.51	0.61	0.69	top 45% in California; bottom 39% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing	4.04	3.90	3.50	top 31% in California; top 22% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)	0.45	0.51	0.48	top 38% in California; top 40% 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 (%)	28.6	38.1	42.9	top 33% in California; top 26% 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 3.81, RN 0.45, weekend 3.62.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.81 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: 3/5

Costs & payment

Price evidence · separate from quality

No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Santa Clara 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 - Corporation

Owner / manager	Type	Role	Stake	Since
		Ownership Data Not Available

All 1 owning or managing party CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.

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.

"What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
"What specific steps do you take to prevent abuse and neglect, and how are staff trained on them?"
"How is your kitchen staffed, and have meals ever been delayed because of staffing?"
"Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
"Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
"Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
"If my family member is able to manage their own medications, would you allow it, and how is that decided?"
"Can you give me examples of how you adjust daily routines and room setups to fit each resident's preferences?"

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 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 62 within 20 miles)

Facility	Distance	City	Overall	Inspection
Milpitas Care Center	3.3 mi	Milpitas, CA	★★☆☆☆	2/5
The Win Post-Acute	3.8 mi	Santa Clara, CA	★★★★★	4/5
Skyline Healthcare Center - San Jose	4.3 mi	San Jose, CA	★☆☆☆☆	1/5
O'Connor Hospital D/P SNF	4.3 mi	San Jose, CA	★★★★★	5/5
Cedar Crest Nursing and Rehabilitation Center	4.6 mi	Sunnyvale, CA	★★★★☆	3/5
Courtyard Care Center	4.8 mi	San Jose, CA	★★★☆☆	3/5
Sunnyvale Gardens Post Acute	5.0 mi	Sunnyvale, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5
San Jose Healthcare & Wellness Center	5.0 mi	San Jose, CA	★★★☆☆	3/5
White Blossom Care Center	5.5 mi	San Jose, CA	★★☆☆☆	1/5
Canyon Springs Post-Acute	5.8 mi	San Jose, CA	★★★★☆	3/5
Vista Manor Nursing Center	5.9 mi	San Jose, CA	★★★★★	5/5
A Grace Sub Acute & Skilled Care	6.0 mi	San Jose, CA	★★★★☆	3/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

Other facilities in the same county

CMS records place this facility in Santa Clara, CA — 50 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.

Saratoga Retirement Community Health Center — Saratoga, CA · overall 5/5
Stonebrook Health and Rehabilitation — Los Gatos, CA · overall 5/5
Sunny View Manor — Cupertino, CA · overall 5/5
Sunnyvale Post-Acute Center — Sunnyvale, CA · overall 1/5
The Redwoods Post-Acute — San Jose, CA · overall 3/5
The Ridge Post Acute — San Jose, CA · overall 5/5

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

All facilities in Santa Clara →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 056069.