California ›Santa Cruz

Santa Cruz Post Acute

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

1115 Capitola Road, Santa Cruz, CA 95062 (opens Google Maps) · Santa Cruz County · (831) 475-4055· 149 certified beds · avg 144 residents/day · certified since Aug 1, 1972 · 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★)

1/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Mar 3, 2025
4
Serious findings on record
most recent Nov 14, 2025
$161,912
Fines, last 3 years
3.75
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: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · 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 · Nov 14, 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: Nov 24, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Nov 6, 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: Nov 25, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jun 25, 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: Jul 8, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jun 18, 2024 · F-0686 · triggered by a complaint

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.

Why it matters: Bedsores are painful, can become deeply infected, and in serious cases can be life-threatening.

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: Jul 8, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 83 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 treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint F-0684

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

    The facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives. · from a complaint F-0806

  3. E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern

    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

View all 83 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
May 11, 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 11, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives. · from a complaint · F-0806
Feb 26, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Feb 26, 2026D · 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
Feb 26, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · from a complaint · F-0690
Nov 26, 2025D · 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
Nov 14, 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
Nov 6, 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
Jul 8, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. · from a complaint · F-0552
Mar 3, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Mar 3, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684
Mar 3, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Mar 3, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Mar 3, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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. · F-0725
Mar 3, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · F-0726
Mar 3, 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
Mar 3, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Mar 3, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Mar 3, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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 3, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Mar 3, 2025E · 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
Mar 3, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804
Mar 3, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Mar 3, 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
Mar 3, 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
Mar 3, 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
Mar 3, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Mar 3, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not fully assess residents on time — a complete assessment of health, abilities, and needs is required when a resident is first admitted and at least once every 12 months after that. · F-0636
Mar 3, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility was not properly licensed, or did not operate in compliance with federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and accepted professional standards. · F-0836
Dec 26, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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 26, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Dec 9, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · from a complaint · F-0677
Oct 23, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not make sure its nurse aides were properly trained — aides working more than 4 months must be trained and competent, and newer aides must be enrolled in training. · from a complaint · F-0728
Oct 23, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal 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
Aug 6, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · from a complaint · F-0690
Aug 6, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint · F-0842
Aug 2, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Aug 2, 2024D · 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
Jul 31, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · from a complaint · F-0561
Jul 31, 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
Jul 31, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · from a complaint · F-0700
Jul 5, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not honor residents' right to share a room with their spouse or a roommate of their choosing, or moved residents to a different room without written notice beforehand. · from a complaint · F-0559
Jun 25, 2024▲ 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
Jun 19, 2024F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · from a complaint · F-0726
Jun 18, 2024▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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
Jun 18, 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
Mar 7, 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
Jan 12, 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
Jan 12, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not properly prepare residents for a safe transfer or discharge. Before a resident leaves, the facility must get them ready and make sure the move is safe and orderly. · from a complaint · F-0624
Jan 12, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Nov 30, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Nov 30, 2023D · 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
Nov 30, 2023D · 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
Nov 30, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Nov 30, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not make sure the resident's doctor reviewed their care and wrote, signed, and dated progress notes and orders at each required visit. · from a complaint · F-0711
Nov 30, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 13, 2023D · 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
May 12, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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 12, 2023E · 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
May 12, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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 12, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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 12, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804
May 12, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. · F-0814
May 12, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
May 12, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not make sure resident assessments were done by a qualified health professional. Assessments guide all of a resident's care, so the person doing them must be properly trained. · F-0642
May 12, 2023D · 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. · F-0658
May 12, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not help a resident get vision and hearing services — such as eye exams, glasses, hearing tests, or hearing aids. · F-0685
May 12, 2023D · 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
May 12, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
May 12, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not safely and appropriately administer IV fluids (fluids given through a vein) for residents who needed them. · F-0694
May 12, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 12, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 12, 2023D · 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
May 12, 2023D · 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
Jan 24, 2020D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not safely and appropriately administer IV fluids (fluids given through a vein) for residents who needed them. · F-0694
Jan 24, 2020D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 24, 2020D · 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
Jan 24, 2020D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Jan 24, 2020D · 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
Jan 24, 2020D · 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
Jan 24, 2020D · 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
Jan 24, 2020D · 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
Jan 24, 2020D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not have a working call system — the button or cord residents use to summon help — in each resident's bathroom and bathing area. · F-0919

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (17 → 20).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2020
All citations: 9
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 24
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 21
Serious citations (G–L): 2
2025
All citations: 24
Serious citations (G–L): 2
2026
All citations: 5
Serious citations (G–L): 0

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

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202090D
2023240E
2024212G ▲
2025242G ▲
202650E

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 →

3 fines totaling $161,912.

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 6, 2025Fine$84,363
Mar 3, 2025Fine$26,719
Mar 7, 2024Fine$50,830

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: 3.75
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.39
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.50
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)3.754.313.95bottom 24% in California; bottom 49% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.390.610.69bottom 31% in California; bottom 21% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.503.903.50bottom 31% in California; top 42% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.330.510.48bottom 40% in California; bottom 38% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)46.736.745.8bottom 20% in California; bottom 45% 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 3.86, RN 0.41, weekend 3.61.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.86 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: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5

Costs & payment

Price evidence · separate from quality

No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Santa Cruz 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 / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Apt, FrederickIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Bayaca, FrancisIndividualContracted Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE07/01/2012
Hancock, MarkIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Hancock, MarkIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE07/17/2017
Jergensen, JoshuaIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Mitchell, JohnIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Murray, JasonIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE07/17/2017
Murray, JasonIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE07/17/2017
Warr, BrandonIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE08/10/2023
Warr, BrandonIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE08/10/2023

All 10 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.

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

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?"
  • "How do you prevent bedsores for residents who can't move themselves, and how often are at-risk residents repositioned?"
  • "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
  • "How do you track each resident's food allergies and preferences, and what happens if they don't like what's served?"
  • "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
  • "How do you care for residents with incontinence or catheters, and what do you do to prevent urinary tract infections?"
  • "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?"

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 47% 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 15 within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Redwood Grove Post Acute0.8 miSanta Cruz, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Driftwood Healthcare Center - Santa Cruz1.1 miSanta Cruz, CA★★★★☆3/5
Pacific Coast Manor1.7 miCapitola, CA★★★★★5/5
Watsonville Nursing Center12.8 miWatsonville, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Watsonville Post Acute Center12.8 miWatsonville, CA★★★★★4/5
Manresa Healthcare Center13.3 miWatsonville, CA★★★★☆4/5
Vasona Creek Healthcare Center17.4 miLos Gatos, CA★★☆☆☆3/5
The Terraces of Los Gatos17.9 miLos Gatos, CA★★★★★5/5
Stonebrook Health and Rehabilitation18.6 miLos Gatos, CA★★★★★4/5
Almaden Health and Rehabilitation Center18.7 miSan Jose, CA★★★★☆3/5
Saratoga Retirement Community Health Center19.0 miSaratoga, CA★★★★★5/5
Woodlands Healthcare Center19.1 miLos Gatos, CA★★★★★5/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Santa Cruz →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 056065.

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