How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Smith Ranch Skilled Nursing & Rehabilitation Cente
1550 Silveira Parkway, San Rafael, CA 94903 (opens Google Maps) · Marin County · (415) 499-1000· 80 certified beds · avg 74 residents/day · certified since Apr 15, 1994 · 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 →
Part of chain: GENERATIONS HEALTHCARE (27 facilities, chain avg rating 4.1★)
2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Feb 12, 2026
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.41
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: 3/5 · 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 45 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
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. · from a complaint F-0656
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 F-0657
View all 45 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 9, 2026 | 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 |
| Jun 9, 2026 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0656 |
| Apr 15, 2026 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0657 |
| Apr 15, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · from a complaint · F-0658 |
| Apr 15, 2026 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0684 |
| Apr 15, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint · F-0842 |
| Apr 15, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · from a complaint · F-0760 |
| Feb 12, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Feb 12, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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 12, 2026 | 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 |
| Feb 12, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. · F-0908 |
| Feb 12, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0645 |
| Feb 12, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal 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 |
| Feb 12, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755 |
| Feb 12, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Feb 12, 2026 | 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 16, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not post the names, addresses, and phone numbers of state agencies and advocacy groups, along with a notice that residents may file complaints with the state survey agency. · F-0575 |
| May 16, 2025 | 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 |
| May 16, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The 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 16, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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 |
| May 16, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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 |
| May 16, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. · F-0552 |
| May 16, 2025 | 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. · F-0558 |
| May 16, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| May 16, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641 |
| May 16, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0686 |
| May 16, 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 |
| May 16, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility used feeding tubes without a valid medical reason or the resident's agreement, or did not provide proper care to residents who have feeding tubes. · F-0693 |
| May 16, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| May 16, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 22, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents from misuse of their belongings or money — this is called misappropriation, and it includes theft or improper use of a resident's property or funds. · from a complaint · F-0602 |
| Aug 22, 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 |
| Aug 22, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0577 |
| Aug 22, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not give the resident or their representative written notice of how long it would hold the resident's bed during a hospital stay or approved leave. · F-0625 |
| Aug 22, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641 |
| Aug 22, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Aug 22, 2023 | 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 |
| Aug 22, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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 |
| Aug 22, 2023 | 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 |
| Aug 22, 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. · F-0880 |
| Aug 22, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 |
| Aug 22, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 |
| Aug 22, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0686 |
| Aug 22, 2023 | 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 |
| Aug 22, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · F-0760 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (14 → 9).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 14
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 15
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 16
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 14 | 0 | F |
| 2025 | 15 | 0 | F |
| 2026 | 16 | 0 | E |
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: 3.41
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.34
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.05
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) | 3.41 | 4.31 | 3.95 | bottom 7% in California; bottom 32% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.34 | 0.61 | 0.69 | bottom 18% in California; bottom 14% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.05 | 3.90 | 3.50 | bottom 5% in California; bottom 33% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.26 | 0.51 | 0.48 | bottom 25% in California; bottom 24% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 32.5 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 39% in California; top 19% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 12.5 | 38.1 | 42.9 | top 8% in California; top 6% 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 4.19, RN 0.42, weekend 3.75.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.19 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.
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: 5/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Smith Ranch Skilled Nursing & Rehabilitation Cente. 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 - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mastrocola, Lois | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/20/2017 |
| Olds, Thomas | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/20/2017 |
| Smith, Fred | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/20/2017 |
| Amilcar, Alberta | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/11/2023 |
| Amilcar, Alberta | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/11/2023 |
| Arguel, Angelo Clyde | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/17/2025 |
| Arguel, Angelo Clyde | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/17/2025 |
| Bmo Bank National Association | Organization | 5% or Greater Security Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/06/2021 |
| Bmo Bank National Association | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/06/2021 |
| Bmo Bank National Association | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/06/2021 |
| Coleman, Kelsey | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/13/2016 |
| Coleman, Kelsey | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/13/2016 |
| Daly, Megan | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/30/2003 |
| Daly, Megan | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/30/2003 |
| Deguzman, Dina | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/21/2020 |
| Deguzman, Dina | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/21/2020 |
| Gutierrez, Jesus | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/31/2023 |
| Gutierrez, Jesus | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/31/2023 |
| Life Generations Healthcare, LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/20/2017 |
| Life Generations Healthcare, LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/20/2017 |
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.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Generations Healthcare — 27 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.
- Stanford Court Skilled Nursing & Rehab Center — Santee, CA · overall 5/5
- Temecula Healthcare Center — Temecula, CA · overall 2/5
- The Bradley Gardens — San Jacinto, CA · overall 3/5
- Vista Manor Nursing Center — San Jose, CA · overall 5/5
- Walnut Creek Skilled Nursing & Rehabilitation Cent — Walnut Creek, CA · overall 2/5
- Coronado Ridge Skilled Nursing & Rehabilitation Ce — Henderson, NV · overall 4/5
- Anberry Nursing and Rehabilitation Center — Atwater, CA · overall 5/5
- Arbor Hills Nursing Center — La Mesa, CA · overall 5/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 26 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "Who is on the team that builds each resident's care plan, and how quickly is it in place after admission?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "How do you keep residents' medical records accurate, complete, and secure?"
- "What systems do you use to prevent medication errors, and what happens when one occurs?"
- "Can we tour the resident rooms, bathrooms, and common areas today, including areas not on the usual tour route?"
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 33% 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 52 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Professional Post Acute Center | 0.8 mi | San Rafael, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Pine Ridge Care Center | 0.8 mi | San Rafael, CA | ★★★★★ | 3/5 | |
| Northgate Postacute Care | 0.8 mi | San Rafael, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Marin Post Acute | 1.3 mi | San Rafael, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Villa Marin | 1.6 mi | San Rafael, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| San Rafael Healthcare & Wellness Center, LP | 3.1 mi | San Rafael, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| The Tamalpais | 5.1 mi | Greenbrae, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| South Marin Health & Wellness Center | 5.2 mi | Greenbrae, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Novato Healthcare Center | 6.0 mi | Novato, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| The Redwoods, a Community of Seniors | 8.6 mi | Mill Valley, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Richmond Post Acute Care | 11.0 mi | Richmond, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Creekside Healthcare Center | 11.2 mi | San Pablo, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 |
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555595.