Sierra View Homes

Name: Sierra View Homes
Address: 1155 E. SPRINGFIELD AVENUE, Reedley, CA, 93654, US
Telephone: 5596389226

1155 E. Springfield Avenue, Reedley, CA 93654 · Fresno County · 59 certified beds · avg 54 residents/day · certified since May 1, 1971

3/5

Health inspection rating (on-site)

Serious findings on record

Fines, last 3 years

0.67

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: 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.

All citations in the current public record (29)

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
Feb 11, 2026	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service.
Feb 11, 2026	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service.
Feb 11, 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.
Feb 11, 2026	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Feb 11, 2026	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Feb 11, 2026	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Feb 11, 2026	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Feb 11, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility gave residents unnecessary mind-altering (psychotropic) medications, or used drugs in a way that restrained residents by dulling their ability to think, move, or function.
Feb 11, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not properly complete the required screening (called PASARR) that identifies whether a person entering a nursing home has a mental illness or intellectual disability and needs specialized services.
Feb 11, 2026	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.
Feb 11, 2026	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.
Feb 11, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Feb 11, 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.
Feb 11, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The 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.
Apr 10, 2025	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Apr 10, 2025	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 10, 2025	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.
Dec 15, 2023	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.
Dec 15, 2023	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The facility did not educate residents and staff about COVID-19 vaccination, offer the vaccine to those eligible after that education, or properly document everyone's vaccination status.
Dec 15, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Dec 15, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Dec 15, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle.
Dec 15, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The 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.
Dec 15, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.
Dec 15, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Dec 15, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Dec 15, 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.
Dec 15, 2023	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.
Dec 15, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (3 → 14).

Year	Citations	Worst severity that year
2023	12	F
2025	3	E
2026	14	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)

No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.

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)	0.67	4.31	3.95	bottom 1% in California; bottom 1% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours	0.14	0.61	0.69	bottom 1% in California; bottom 1% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing	0.57	3.90	3.50	bottom 1% in California; bottom 1% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)	0.05	0.51	0.48	bottom 1% in California; bottom 1% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)	0.0	36.7	45.8	—
RN turnover (%)	0.0	38.1	42.9	—

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 0.59, RN 0.12, weekend 0.50. Staffing rating: 1/5.

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: 3/5 · short-stay residents: 2/5

Who owns this facility

Non profit - Corporation

Owner / manager	Type	Role	Stake	Since
Genna, Vito	Individual	Direct Ownership Interest	NOT APPLICABLE	01/13/2006
Bohn, Stella	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	02/25/2025
Boldt, David	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	02/25/2025
Brittell, Lois	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	02/25/2025
Derksen, Wilfred	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	02/28/2023
Ewy, Andrew	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	02/25/2025
Genna, Vito	Individual	Corporate Director	NOT APPLICABLE	01/13/2006
Genna, Vito	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	01/13/2006
Linscheid, Don	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	02/28/2023
Linscheid, Roberta	Individual	Corporate Director	NOT APPLICABLE	02/01/2020
Linscheid, Roberta	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	02/01/2020
Linscheid, Roberta	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	02/01/2020
Milton, Joshua	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	02/25/2020
Smith, Gordon	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	02/27/2024
Unruh, Marianne	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	02/26/2024
Zulim, Rebecca	Individual	Corporate Director	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2022
Zulim, Rebecca	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	05/14/2025

Questions to ask on your visit

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

"Do you have a qualified dietician on staff, and how involved are they in each resident's nutrition plan?"
"How is your kitchen staffed, and have meals ever been delayed because of staffing?"
"What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
"Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
"Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
"How do you keep residents' medical records accurate, complete, and secure?"
"Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
"What percentage of your residents are on antipsychotic or sedating medications, and how do you work to reduce that?"
"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
Vineyard Care Center	0.5 mi	Reedley, CA	★★★★☆	3/5
Palm Village Retirement Comm.	1.3 mi	Reedley, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5
Dinuba Healthcare	5.3 mi	Dinuba, CA	★★★★☆	4/5
Kingsburg Center	8.3 mi	Kingsburg, CA	★★★☆☆	3/5
Bethel Lutheran Home	9.1 mi	Selma, CA	★★★☆☆	3/5
Rolling Hills Care Center	9.6 mi	Selma, CA	★★☆☆☆	2/5
Cornerstone Care Center	10.3 mi	Sanger, CA	★★☆☆☆	2/5
Fowler Care Center	11.4 mi	Fowler, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5
Vineyards at Fowler	12.9 mi	Fowler, CA	★★☆☆☆	2/5
California Home for the Aged	16.0 mi	Fresno, CA	★★★★★	5/5
Grace Healthcare Center	16.9 mi	Fresno, CA	★☆☆☆☆	1/5
Manning Gardens Care Center, INC	17.2 mi	Fresno, CA	★★★★★	4/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Reedley →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 056279.

The Care File

Visit checklist — Sierra View Homes

1155 E. Springfield Avenue, Reedley, CA 93654 · 5596389226

Health inspection rating 3/5 · CMS overall 2/5· Fines (3y): $0

Questions for the administrator:

☐ "Do you have a qualified dietician on staff, and how involved are they in each resident's nutrition plan?"
☐ "How is your kitchen staffed, and have meals ever been delayed because of staffing?"
☐ "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
☐ "Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
☐ "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
☐ "How do you keep residents' medical records accurate, complete, and secure?"
☐ "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
☐ "What percentage of your residents are on antipsychotic or sedating medications, and how do you work to reduce that?"
☐ "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 056279 · Verify at medicare.gov/care-compare · Printed from The Care File (thecarefile.com)