How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Shields Richmond Nursing Center
1919 Cutting Blvd, Richmond, CA 94804 (opens Google Maps) · Contra Costa County · (510) 233-8513· 84 certified beds · avg 77 residents/day · certified since Sep 1, 1967 · 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 Apr 17, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.99
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
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: 4/5 · 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.
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 43 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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 F-0627
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. · from a complaint F-0677
The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · from a complaint F-0804
View all 43 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 10, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0627 |
| Mar 10, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0677 |
| Mar 10, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · from a complaint · F-0804 |
| Apr 17, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0677 |
| Apr 17, 2025 | 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 |
| Apr 17, 2025 | 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 |
| Apr 17, 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 |
| Apr 17, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. · F-0801 |
| Apr 17, 2025 | 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 |
| Apr 17, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| Apr 17, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692 |
| Apr 17, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · F-0726 |
| Apr 17, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Apr 17, 2025 | 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 |
| Apr 17, 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 |
| Apr 17, 2025 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms. · F-0912 |
| Dec 11, 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. · from a complaint · F-0880 |
| Jul 18, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide or arrange dental services for its residents. Nursing homes are responsible for making sure residents can get dental care. · from a complaint · F-0791 |
| Mar 7, 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 |
| Dec 8, 2023 | 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 |
| Dec 8, 2023 | 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 |
| Dec 8, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Dec 8, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804 |
| Dec 8, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives. · F-0806 |
| Dec 8, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Dec 8, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not have a policy covering how food brought in by family and visitors is used and stored safely. · F-0813 |
| Dec 8, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0657 |
| Dec 8, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not prepare and serve food in a form that meets each resident's individual needs — for example, chopped, pureed, or softened food for residents with chewing or swallowing problems. · F-0805 |
| Dec 8, 2023 | 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 |
| Dec 8, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms. · F-0912 |
| Dec 8, 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. · F-0656 |
| Dec 8, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 |
| Dec 8, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692 |
| Dec 8, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the right treatment and services for residents with dementia or signs of dementia. Dementia care requires specific approaches, training, and patience. · F-0744 |
| Dec 8, 2023 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0558 |
| Dec 8, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0609 |
| May 12, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0638 |
| May 12, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 |
| May 12, 2022 | 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. · F-0656 |
| May 12, 2022 | 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 12, 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 12, 2022 | 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 12, 2022 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms. · F-0912 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (15 → 13).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2022
All citations: 7
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 17
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 3
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 13
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 3
Serious citations (G–L): 0
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 7 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 17 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 3 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 13 | 0 | E |
| 2026 | 3 | 0 | D |
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)
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
What these staffing numbers mean →
This facilityCalifornia averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 3.99
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 1.34
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.70
California average: 3.90
U.S. average: 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) | 3.99 | 4.31 | 3.95 | bottom 40% in California; top 40% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 1.34 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 5% in California; top 7% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.70 | 3.90 | 3.50 | bottom 47% in California; top 33% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 1.11 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 7% in California; top 4% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 18.2 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 5% in California; top 2% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 27.8 | 38.1 | 42.9 | top 33% in California; top 25% 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 3.71, RN 1.25, weekend 3.44.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.71 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 5/5.
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
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Shields Richmond Nursing Center. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shields, Monique | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 49% | 05/01/2001 |
| Shields, Willie | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | — | 11/01/1991 |
| Abiad, Ruel | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2019 |
| Abiad, Ruel | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2019 |
| Antigua, Darwin | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/19/2020 |
| Antigua, Darwin | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/19/2020 |
| Booker, Whitney | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/10/2008 |
| Booker, Whitney | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/10/2008 |
| Dela Cruz, Raphael | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/08/2022 |
| Dela Cruz, Raphael | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/08/2022 |
| Dhugga, Gurpreet | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2017 |
| Dhugga, Gurpreet | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2017 |
| Gabriel, Aaron | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/26/2017 |
| Gabriel, Aaron | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/26/2017 |
| Goward, Angelina | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/23/2003 |
| Goward, Angelina | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/23/2003 |
| Hutson, Janice | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/15/2004 |
| Hutson, Janice | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/15/2004 |
| Myers, Arkita | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/27/2010 |
| Myers, Arkita | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/27/2010 |
Showing 20 of 32 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 12 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "Before a resident is discharged or transferred, how do you make sure the new place can actually meet their needs?"
- "How many aides are on each shift, and how do you make sure every resident gets timely help with bathing, dressing, and meals?"
- "Could I join residents for a meal to see the food quality and temperature for myself?"
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "What is your current medication error rate, and what have you changed to bring errors down?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "Do you have a qualified dietician on staff, and how involved are they in each resident's nutrition plan?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
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 18% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 32 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 (12 closest of 92 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Richmond Post Acute Care | 1.4 mi | Richmond, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Vale Healthcare Center | 2.2 mi | San Pablo, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Creekside Healthcare Center | 2.3 mi | San Pablo, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| San Pablo Healthcare & Wellness Center | 2.3 mi | San Pablo, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Shields Nursing Center | 3.2 mi | El Cerrito, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Greenridge Post Acute | 3.7 mi | El Sobrante, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Chaparral House | 5.2 mi | Berkeley, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Kyakameena Care Center | 6.2 mi | Berkeley, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Elmwood Care Center | 6.4 mi | Berkeley, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Ashby Care Center | 6.5 mi | Berkeley, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Berkeley Pines Skilled Nursing Center | 6.9 mi | Berkeley, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| The Rehabilitation Center of Oakland | 8.4 mi | Oakland, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Contra Costa, CA — 30 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Stonebrook Post Acute — Concord, CA · overall 4/5
- Tampico Healthcare Center — Walnut Creek, CA · overall 4/5
- The Reutlinger Community — Danville, CA · overall 4/5
- Tice Valley Post Acute — Walnut Creek, CA · overall 5/5
- Walnut Creek Skilled Nursing & Rehabilitation Cent — Walnut Creek, CA · overall 2/5
- Willow Pass Healthcare Center — Concord, CA · overall 3/5
- Alhambra Post Acute — Martinez, CA · overall 5/5
Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 055292.