California ›Reedley

Sierra View Homes

Costs & paymentPlan a visit

1155 E. Springfield Avenue, Reedley, CA 93654 (opens Google Maps) · Fresno County · (559) 638-9226· 59 certified beds · avg 54 residents/day · certified since May 1, 1971 · 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 →

3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Feb 11, 2026
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
0.67
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: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5 · 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 29 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

View all 29 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
Feb 11, 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
Feb 11, 2026F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service. · F-0802
Feb 11, 2026F · 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
Feb 11, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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. · F-0550
Feb 11, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658
Feb 11, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842
Feb 11, 2026E · 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
Feb 11, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0605
Feb 11, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0645
Feb 11, 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
Feb 11, 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
Feb 11, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Feb 11, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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
Feb 11, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0919
Apr 10, 2025E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Apr 10, 2025D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641
Apr 10, 2025D · 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
Dec 15, 2023F · 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
Dec 15, 2023F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespreadThe 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. · F-0887
Dec 15, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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 15, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658
Dec 15, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. · F-0679
Dec 15, 2023E · 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
Dec 15, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755
Dec 15, 2023E · Potential for more than minimal harm, patternThe 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
Dec 15, 2023E · 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
Dec 15, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe 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. · F-0550
Dec 15, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584
Dec 15, 2023D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolatedThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures for offering residents flu and pneumonia vaccinations. · F-0883

Inspection trend by year

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

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 12
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 3
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 14
Serious citations (G–L): 0

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

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2023120F
202530E
2026140F

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 →

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

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: 0.67
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.14
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 0.57
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)0.674.313.95bottom 1% in California; bottom 1% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.140.610.69bottom 1% in California; bottom 1% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing0.573.903.50bottom 1% in California; bottom 1% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.050.510.48bottom 1% in California; bottom 1% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)—36.745.8—
RN turnover (%)—38.142.9—

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 0.59, RN 0.12, weekend 0.50.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (0.59 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 1/5.

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: 3/5 · short-stay residents: 2/5

Costs & payment

Price evidence · separate from quality

No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Sierra View Homes. 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 →

Non profit - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Genna, VitoIndividualDirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE01/13/2006
Bohn, StellaIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE02/25/2025
Boldt, DavidIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE02/25/2025
Brittell, LoisIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE02/25/2025
Derksen, WilfredIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE02/28/2023
Ewy, AndrewIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE02/25/2025
Genna, VitoIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/13/2006
Genna, VitoIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/13/2006
Linscheid, DonIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE02/28/2023
Linscheid, RobertaIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE02/01/2020
Linscheid, RobertaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE02/01/2020
Linscheid, RobertaIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/01/2020
Milton, JoshuaIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE02/25/2020
Smith, GordonIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE02/27/2024
Unruh, MarianneIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE02/26/2024
Zulim, RebeccaIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2022
Zulim, RebeccaIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE05/14/2025

All 17 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.

  • "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?"

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?"
  • "The ownership record on file lists 17 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 21 within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Vineyard Care Center0.5 miReedley, CA★★★★☆3/5
Palm Village Retirement Comm.1.3 miReedley, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Dinuba Healthcare5.3 miDinuba, CA★★★★☆4/5
Kingsburg Center8.3 miKingsburg, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Bethel Lutheran Home9.1 miSelma, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Rolling Hills Care Center9.6 miSelma, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Cornerstone Care Center10.3 miSanger, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Fowler Care Center11.4 miFowler, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Vineyards at Fowler12.9 miFowler, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
California Home for the Aged16.0 miFresno, CA★★★★★5/5
Grace Healthcare Center16.9 miFresno, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5
Manning Gardens Care Center, INC17.2 miFresno, CA★★★★★4/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

Other facilities in the same county

CMS records place this facility in Fresno, CA — 31 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.

Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.

All facilities in Reedley →

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

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