How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
South Bay Post Acute Care
553 F Street, Chula Vista, CA 91910 (opens Google Maps) · San Diego County · (619) 426-8611· 99 certified beds · avg 93 residents/day · certified since Jul 23, 2011 · 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: THE ENSIGN GROUP (342 facilities, chain avg rating 3.2★)
5/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected May 8, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.78
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: ★★★★★5/5 · CMS overall rating: 5/5 · 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 30 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · from a complaint F-0755
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
View all 30 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2026 | 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 |
| May 13, 2025 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0755 |
| May 13, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Jan 25, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0755 |
| Nov 21, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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 |
| Nov 21, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide its staff with required training on behavioral health — caring for residents with conditions like dementia, depression, or other mental health needs. · F-0949 |
| Nov 21, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0550 |
| Nov 21, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate. · F-0554 |
| Nov 21, 2022 | 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 |
| Nov 21, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0644 |
| Nov 21, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Nov 21, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not properly plan a resident's discharge to meet the resident's goals and needs after leaving. · F-0660 |
| Nov 21, 2022 | 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 |
| Nov 21, 2022 | 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 |
| Nov 21, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not safely and appropriately administer IV fluids (fluids given through a vein) for residents who needed them. · F-0694 |
| Nov 21, 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 |
| Nov 21, 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 |
| Nov 21, 2022 | 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 |
| Nov 21, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842 |
| Nov 21, 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 |
| Nov 29, 2018 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. · F-0578 |
| Nov 29, 2018 | 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 |
| Nov 29, 2018 | 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. · F-0677 |
| Nov 29, 2018 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · F-0697 |
| Nov 29, 2018 | 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 |
| Nov 29, 2018 | 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 |
| Nov 29, 2018 | 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 |
| Nov 29, 2018 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Nov 29, 2018 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide special eating equipment and utensils — like adaptive cups or easy-grip silverware — for residents who need them, along with appropriate help at meals. · F-0810 |
| Nov 29, 2018 | 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 |
Inspection trend by year
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2018
All citations: 10
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2022
All citations: 16
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 1
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | 10 | 0 | D |
| 2022 | 16 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 1 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 2 | 0 | D |
| 2026 | 1 | 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: 3.78
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.85
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.27
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) | 3.78 | 4.31 | 3.95 | bottom 25% in California; top 50% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.85 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 15% in California; top 24% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.27 | 3.90 | 3.50 | bottom 15% in California; bottom 46% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.69 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 16% in California; top 17% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 40.6 | 36.7 | 45.8 | bottom 36% in California; top 38% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 50.0 | 38.1 | 42.9 | bottom 29% in California; bottom 39% 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 4.23, RN 0.95, weekend 3.67.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.23 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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · 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 South Bay Post Acute Care. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Burnam, Soon | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/10/2014 |
| Collingwood Manor Nursing Facility, LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2014 |
| Ensign Services INC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2014 |
| Fahid, Amir | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/19/2024 |
| Fahid, Amir | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/19/2024 |
| Fahid, Amir | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/19/2024 |
| Jimenez, John | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2014 |
| Jimenez, John | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2014 |
| Jimenez, John | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/01/2014 |
| Keetch, Chad | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2011 |
| Oh, Katherine | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2025 |
| Port, Barry | Individual | Individual Is an Owner, Partner or Trustee of Any ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/04/2025 |
| Sato, Ami | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/09/2024 |
| Willits, Adam | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2017 |
All 14 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain The Ensign Group — 342 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.
- Southland — Norwalk, CA · overall 1/5
- St Elizabeth Healthcare Center — Fullerton, CA · overall 3/5
- St. Catherine Healthcare — Fullerton, CA · overall 3/5
- Summerfield Health Care Center — Santa Rosa, CA · overall 5/5
- The Cove at la Jolla — La Jolla, CA · overall 5/5
- The Grove Care and Wellness — Riverside, CA · overall 5/5
- The Hills Post Acute — Santa Ana, CA · overall 1/5
- The Orchard - Post Acute Care — Whittier, CA · overall 2/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 341 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.
- "How do you prevent bedsores for residents who can't move themselves, and how often are at-risk residents repositioned?"
- "How does your pharmacist review residents' medications, and how quickly can you fill new or urgent prescriptions?"
- "How do you keep residents' medical records accurate, complete, and secure?"
- "What is your nurse and aide staffing ratio on each shift, including nights and weekends?"
- "What training do your staff receive for caring for residents with dementia or mental health conditions?"
- "Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
- "If my family member is able to manage their own medications, would you allow it, and how is that decided?"
- "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 41% 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 (12 closest of 55 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| National City Post Acute | 1.8 mi | National City, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Hillcrest Manor Sanitarium | 2.0 mi | National City, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Reo Vista Healthcare Center | 2.9 mi | San Diego, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Friendship Manor Nursing & Rehab Center | 3.1 mi | National City, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Paradise Valley Health Care | 3.2 mi | National City, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Castle Manor Nursing & Rehabilitation Center | 3.2 mi | National City, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Veterans Home of California - Chula Vista | 3.7 mi | Chula Vista, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Sharp Chula Vista Med Ctr SNF | 4.3 mi | Chula Vista, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Brighton Place San Diego | 5.6 mi | San Diego, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Golden Hill Post Acute | 5.8 mi | San Diego, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Villa Coronado D/P SNF | 6.1 mi | Coronado, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Ridgeview Skilled Nursing Facility | 6.7 mi | San Diego, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in San Diego, CA — 83 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- St. Pauls Health Care Center — San Diego, CA · overall 2/5abuse
- Stanford Court Skilled Nursing & Rehab Center — Santee, CA · overall 5/5
- Stillwater Post-Acute — El Cajon, CA · overall 2/5
- The Cove at la Jolla — La Jolla, CA · overall 5/5
- The Dorothy & Joseph Goldberg Healthcare Center — Encinitas, CA · overall 5/5
- The Pavilion at Ocean Point — San Diego, CA · overall 2/5
- The Royal Home — El Cajon, CA · overall 4/5
- The Shores Post-Acute — San Diego, CA · overall 3/5
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 555873.