Shasta Healthcare
445 Park Street, Weed, CA 96094 · Siskiyou County · 59 certified beds · avg 37 residents/day · certified since Jul 14, 1967
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5
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)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, facility-wide · Jul 24, 2024 · F-0684 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Why it matters: Care that strays from doctor's orders or ignores the resident's wishes can lead to declining health and avoidable harm.
Severity (L): A life-threatening or extremely dangerous situation existed throughout the facility. The single most serious citation CMS can issue.
Corrected: Jul 31, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Immediate jeopardy, repeated · Jul 12, 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 (K): A life-threatening or extremely dangerous situation affected several residents. Among the most serious findings an inspection can produce.
Corrected: Jul 25, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · Sep 12, 2025 · 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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.
Corrected: Sep 30, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
All citations in the current public record (31)
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Apr 24, 2026 | 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. |
| Apr 24, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not allow a resident's chosen representative — often a family member or someone with power of attorney — to exercise the resident's rights on their behalf. When a resident can't speak for themselves, their representative steps into that role. |
| Apr 24, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Apr 24, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not give residents the required written notice of their rights, the facility's rules, the services offered, and what those services cost. |
| Apr 24, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not make its inspection results easy for residents to see, or made it hard for residents to contact advocacy agencies like the ombudsman. |
| Apr 24, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Apr 24, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required. |
| Apr 24, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Apr 24, 2026 | 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. |
| Apr 24, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not designate a physician to serve as medical director — the doctor responsible for overseeing resident care policies and coordinating medical care across the facility. |
| Apr 24, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not make sure its nurse aides had the skills needed to care for residents, including training in dementia care and abuse prevention. |
| Sep 12, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual harm, one-off | 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 |
| Sep 12, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not make sure a transfer or discharge met the resident's needs and preferences, or did not properly prepare the resident to leave safely. · from a complaint |
| Sep 12, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · from a complaint |
| Sep 12, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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 |
| Jun 18, 2025 | 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 |
| Jan 15, 2025 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. |
| Jan 15, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. |
| Jul 24, 2024 | ▲ L · Immediate jeopardy, facility-wide | 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 |
| Jul 12, 2024 | ▲ K · Immediate jeopardy, repeated | 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 |
| Nov 6, 2023 | 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 |
| Nov 6, 2023 | 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 |
| Aug 15, 2023 | 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 |
| Jul 21, 2022 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. |
| Jul 21, 2022 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Jul 21, 2022 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Jul 21, 2022 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests. |
| Jul 21, 2022 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. |
| Jul 21, 2022 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility was not managed in a way that uses its money, staff, and resources effectively and efficiently to care for residents. |
| Jul 21, 2022 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. |
| Jul 21, 2022 | C · Minimal risk, facility-wide | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (2 → 11).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 8 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 3 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 2 | 2 | L ▲ |
| 2025 | 7 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2026 | 11 | 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 $84,526.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 12, 2025 | Fine | $24,518 |
| Jul 12, 2024 | Fine | $60,008 |
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) | 4.61 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 24% in California; top 20% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.68 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 26% in California; top 38% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.82 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 44% in California; top 28% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.40 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 45% in California; top 48% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 31.9 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 37% in California; top 18% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 22.2 | 38.1 | 42.9 | top 23% in California; top 17% 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 4.71, RN 0.69, weekend 3.91. Staffing rating: 4/5.
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: 2/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5
Who owns this facility
For profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Emerson, Cheryl | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 21% | 12/11/2015 |
| Emry, Kent | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 58% | 12/11/2015 |
| Phelps, Julie | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 21% | 12/11/2015 |
| Emerson, Cheryl | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/11/2015 |
| Emerson, Cheryl | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/11/2015 |
| Emerson, Cheryl | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/16/2015 |
| Emry, Kent | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/11/2015 |
| Emry, Kent | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/11/2015 |
| Phelps, Julie | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/11/2015 |
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "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?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "How do you involve a resident's representative in care decisions, and how quickly are they consulted?"
- "If my family member is able to manage their own medications, would you allow it, and how is that decided?"
- "Can I get a written copy of resident rights, house rules, and a full list of services and charges today?"
- "Where do you post your latest state inspection results and the ombudsman's contact information?"
- "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)
No other Medicare-certified nursing homes within 20 miles in the current records.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 055807.