California ›Fort Bragg

Sherwood Oaks Post Acute Care, LLC

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

130 Dana Street, Fort Bragg, CA 95437 (opens Google Maps) · Mendocino County · (707) 964-6333· 79 certified beds · avg 32 residents/day · certified since Jan 2, 1997 · 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 →

1/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Mar 6, 2026
2
Serious findings on record
most recent Mar 6, 2026
$87,802
Fines, last 3 years
3.95
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: 1/5 · 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 · Mar 6, 2026 · F-0684

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 (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: Apr 23, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, isolated · Feb 12, 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: Feb 27, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 47 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

  1. G · Actual 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. F-0684

  2. 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

  3. F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread

    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

View all 47 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
Mar 6, 2026▲ G · Actual harm, isolatedThe 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 6, 2026F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. · F-0801
Mar 6, 2026F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe 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 6, 2026F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not designate a qualified infection preventionist — a trained person responsible for running the infection prevention and control program. · F-0882
Mar 6, 2026F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. · F-0908
Mar 6, 2026E · 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 6, 2026E · 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 6, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not have a written plan describing how it runs its quality improvement program — the ongoing process of finding problems in care and fixing them. · F-0865
Mar 6, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility's quality committee — the internal group responsible for finding and fixing care problems — did not have the required members or did not meet at least every three months. · F-0868
Mar 6, 2026D · 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. · F-0552
Mar 6, 2026D · 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. · F-0656
Mar 6, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0657
Mar 6, 2026D · 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
Feb 5, 2026E · 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. · from a complaint · F-0812
Feb 12, 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
Feb 12, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Feb 12, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Dec 24, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Dec 24, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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 · F-0609
May 24, 2024F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe 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. · from a complaint · F-0727
May 24, 2024F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records. · F-0851
May 24, 2024F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not have a written plan describing how it runs its quality improvement program — the ongoing process of finding problems in care and fixing them. · F-0865
May 24, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
May 24, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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 · F-0609
May 24, 2024E · 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
May 24, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable. · F-0655
May 24, 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. · F-0677
May 24, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692
May 24, 2024E · 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
May 24, 2024E · 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. · from a complaint · F-0726
May 24, 2024E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not post its nurse staffing information every day. Nursing homes must publicly display how many nurses and aides are on duty each day. · F-0732
May 24, 2024E · 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. · from a complaint · F-0761
May 24, 2024E · 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 24, 2024E · 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
May 24, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0644
May 24, 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. · F-0684
May 24, 2024D · 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 24, 2024D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Dec 6, 2023F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. · from a complaint · F-0801
May 20, 2022F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. · F-0801
May 20, 2022F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe 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 20, 2022E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
May 20, 2022E · 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
May 20, 2022E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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 20, 2022E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
May 20, 2022E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them. · F-0867
May 20, 2022D · 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. · F-0622

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (19 → 13).

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2022
All citations: 8
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 21
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 3
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2026
All citations: 14
Serious citations (G–L): 1

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

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202280F
202310F
2024210F
202531G ▲
2026141G ▲

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 →

2 fines totaling $87,802, plus 2 Medicare payment denial periods.

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
Mar 6, 2026Fine$78,832
Mar 6, 2026Payment Denial32 days from Apr 4, 2026
Feb 12, 2025Fine$8,970
Feb 12, 2025Payment Denial25 days from Mar 8, 2025

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: 3.95
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.77
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.74
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)3.954.313.95bottom 38% in California; top 41% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.770.610.69top 19% in California; top 30% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.743.903.50bottom 49% in California; top 31% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.730.510.48top 14% in California; top 15% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)36.436.745.8top 50% in California; top 27% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)28.638.142.9top 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 3.85, RN 0.75, weekend 3.65.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.85 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: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 1/5 · 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 Sherwood Oaks Post Acute Care, LLC. 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 - Partnership

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Sherwood Oaks Post Acute Care, LLC.Organization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%02/21/2022
Baldwin, RonaldIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE02/21/2022
Baldwin, RonaldIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/18/2022
Dickman Weston GroupOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE05/01/2024
Dickman Weston GroupOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2025
Hansen Hunter LLCOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE02/21/2022
Hansen Hunter LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2025
NG, AndrewIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE02/21/2022
NG, AndrewIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2022
Serenethos LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/21/2022
Sherwood Oaks Post Acute Care, LLC.OrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE02/21/2022
Sherwood Oaks Post Acute Care, LLC.OrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2025
Xie, QingIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE02/21/2022
Xie, QingIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/18/2022

All 14 owning or managing parties 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.

  • "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?"
  • "Do you have a qualified dietician on staff, and how involved are they in each resident's nutrition plan?"
  • "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
  • "Who is your infection preventionist, and what training do they have?"
  • "How do you inspect and maintain essential equipment, and how quickly are repairs made?"
  • "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
  • "Could I join residents for a meal to see the food quality and temperature for myself?"

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?"
  • "The ownership record on file lists 14 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
  • "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Northbrook Healthcare Center23.0 miWillits, CA★★★★★4/5
Redwood Cove Healthcare Center37.5 miUkiah, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Ukiah Post Acute37.7 miUkiah, CA★★★★☆4/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Fort Bragg →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 056483.

This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).

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