Shafter Nursing Care

Name: Shafter Nursing Care
Address: 140 EAST TULARE AVENUE, Shafter, CA, 93263, US
Telephone: 6617463912

140 East Tulare Avenue, Shafter, CA 93263 · Kern County · 99 certified beds · avg 83 residents/day · certified since Jan 1, 1971

3/5

Health inspection rating (on-site)

Serious findings on record

$27,439

Fines, last 3 years

4.05

Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 3/5

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 self-reported quality measures.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Nov 19, 2024 · F-0656 · triggered by a complaint

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.

Why it matters: Without a complete, working care plan, important needs can slip through the cracks and no one is accountable for results.

Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Dec 16, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Sep 17, 2024 · F-0602 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not protect residents from misuse of their belongings or money — this is called misappropriation, and it includes theft or improper use of a resident's property or funds.

Why it matters: Residents can lose money, jewelry, or cherished possessions to theft or misuse.

Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Oct 18, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (38)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

Date	Severity	What the facility was cited for
Jul 1, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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
Apr 9, 2026	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The facility did not have a registered nurse on duty at least 8 hours a day, or did not have a registered nurse serving full-time as director of nursing.
Apr 9, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives.
Apr 9, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives.
Apr 9, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Feb 10, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide required paperwork or notices about a resident's needs, their right to appeal a transfer or discharge, or the facility's bed-hold policy (how long a bed is saved during a hospital stay). · from a complaint
Dec 19, 2024	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	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.
Dec 19, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand.
Dec 19, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not have a registered nurse on duty at least 8 hours a day, or did not have a registered nurse serving full-time as director of nursing.
Dec 19, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required.
Dec 19, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not update each resident's care assessment at least once every 3 months. These regular check-ins keep the resident's care plan matched to their current condition.
Dec 19, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not coordinate resident assessments with the state's pre-admission screening program for mental illness and intellectual disabilities, or failed to refer residents for the special services they need.
Nov 19, 2024	▲ G · Actual harm, one-off	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
Oct 2, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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
Sep 17, 2024	▲ G · Actual harm, one-off	The facility did not protect residents from misuse of their belongings or money — this is called misappropriation, and it includes theft or improper use of a resident's property or funds. · from a complaint
Sep 17, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint
Jun 13, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility hired someone with an official finding of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or theft against them. Facilities are not allowed to employ people with such findings. · from a complaint
Apr 9, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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
Mar 21, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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
Mar 21, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint
Mar 20, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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
Mar 20, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not let a resident return after a hospital stay or approved leave that lasted longer than the facility's bed-hold policy allowed. Residents generally have the right to come back to the next available bed. · from a complaint
Mar 12, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The 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. · from a complaint
Feb 12, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint
Jan 10, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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. · from a complaint
Jan 8, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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
Oct 26, 2023	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The facility did not have a registered nurse on duty at least 8 hours a day, or did not have a registered nurse serving full-time as director of nursing.
Oct 26, 2023	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	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.
Oct 26, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Oct 26, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Oct 26, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Oct 26, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives.
Oct 26, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Oct 26, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Oct 26, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Aug 31, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The 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
Aug 9, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The 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. · from a complaint
Aug 9, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (6 → 4).

Year	Citations	Serious (G–L)	Worst severity that year
2023	12	0	F
2024	20	2	G ▲
2026	6	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)

2 fines totaling $27,439.

Date	Type	Amount / length
Nov 19, 2024	Fine	$9,505
Sep 17, 2024	Fine	$17,934

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

Measure	This facility	California avg	U.S. avg	Where it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)	4.05	4.31	3.95	bottom 46% in California; top 37% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours	0.38	0.61	0.69	bottom 27% in California; bottom 19% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing	3.69	3.90	3.50	bottom 46% in California; top 34% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)	0.19	0.51	0.48	bottom 8% in California; bottom 10% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)	43.1	36.7	45.8	bottom 30% in California; top 45% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)	16.7	38.1	42.9	top 13% in California; top 9% in the U.S.

Hours are per resident per day, 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 3.99, RN 0.37, weekend 3.64. Staffing rating: 3/5.

Self-reported quality measures

Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.

Quality measures rating: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / manager	Type	Role	Stake	Since
Frankel, Moishe	Individual	5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest	20%	04/01/2023
Hammami, Mohamed	Individual	5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest	20%	04/01/2023
Levy, David	Individual	5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest	20%	04/01/2023
Melliti, Rush	Individual	5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest	—	04/01/2023
Pease, Nathan	Individual	5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest	20%	04/01/2023
Frankel, Moishe	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	04/01/2023
Hammami, Mohamed	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	01/17/2019
Levy, David	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	04/01/2023
Melliti, Rush	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	04/01/2023
Pease, Nathan	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	04/01/2023
Telmo, Dio	Individual	W-2 Managing Employee	NOT APPLICABLE	01/17/2020

Questions to ask on your visit

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

"Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
"What safeguards do you have to protect residents' money and belongings, and what happens when something goes missing?"
"Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
"How many hours a day is a registered nurse physically in the building, including weekends?"
"Who completes resident assessments here, and how do you check them for accuracy?"
"How do you track each resident's food allergies and preferences, and what happens if they don't like what's served?"
"What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
"What written notices do we get before any transfer or discharge, and what is your bed-hold policy?"
"What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
"Can I see the results and plan of correction from your most recent state inspection?"

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

Facility	Distance	City	Overall	Inspection	Flags
Bayshire Riverwalk Post-Acute	10.4 mi	Bakersfield, CA	★☆☆☆☆	1/5	abuse
Kern River Transitional Care	14.3 mi	Bakersfield, CA	★☆☆☆☆	1/5
Rosewood Health Facility	16.8 mi	Bakersfield, CA	★★★★☆	3/5
San Joaquin Nursing Center and Rehabilitation Cent	17.1 mi	Bakersfield, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5
The Orchards Post-Acute	17.4 mi	Bakersfield, CA	★★☆☆☆	2/5
Valley Healthcare Center	17.6 mi	Bakersfield, CA	★☆☆☆☆	1/5
Adventist Health Delano	17.7 mi	Delano, CA	★★☆☆☆	2/5
Delano District Skilled Nursing Facility	17.8 mi	Delano, CA	★☆☆☆☆	1/5
Valley View Care Center	17.9 mi	Delano, CA	★★☆☆☆	2/5	abuse
Height Street Skilled Care	19.1 mi	Bakersfield, CA	★☆☆☆☆	1/5
The Rehabilitation Center of Bakersfield	19.3 mi	Bakersfield, CA	★☆☆☆☆	1/5
Parkview Julian Healthcare Center	19.4 mi	Bakersfield, CA	★☆☆☆☆	1/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Shafter →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 056035.

The Care File

Visit checklist — Shafter Nursing Care

140 East Tulare Avenue, Shafter, CA 93263 · 6617463912

Health inspection rating 3/5 · CMS overall 3/5· Fines (3y): $27,439

Most serious findings on record:

▲ Nov 19, 2024 (F-0656, Actual harm, one-off): 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.
▲ Sep 17, 2024 (F-0602, Actual harm, one-off): The facility did not protect residents from misuse of their belongings or money — this is called misappropriation, and it includes theft or improper use of a resident's property or funds.

Questions for the administrator:

☐ "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
☐ "What safeguards do you have to protect residents' money and belongings, and what happens when something goes missing?"
☐ "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
☐ "How many hours a day is a registered nurse physically in the building, including weekends?"
☐ "Who completes resident assessments here, and how do you check them for accuracy?"
☐ "How do you track each resident's food allergies and preferences, and what happens if they don't like what's served?"
☐ "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
☐ "What written notices do we get before any transfer or discharge, and what is your bed-hold policy?"
☐ "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
☐ "Can I see the results and plan of correction from your most recent state inspection?"

While you're there, notice:

☐ Smell and cleanliness in hallways, not just the lobby
☐ How staff speak to residents; call lights answered promptly
☐ Residents up, dressed, and engaged (visit mealtimes and a weekend if you can)

Data: CMS Provider Data Catalog, version 2026-08-01 · CCN 056035 · Verify at medicare.gov/care-compare · Printed from The Care File (thecarefile.com)