How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Springs Road Healthcare
1527 Springs Rd, Vallejo, CA 94591 (opens Google Maps) · Solano County · (707) 643-2793· 65 certified beds · avg 60 residents/day · certified since Jan 1, 1974 · 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: BVHC, LLC (12 facilities, chain avg rating 3.3★)
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jun 12, 2026
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.30
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: ★★★★☆4/5 · 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 24 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. F-0583
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
View all 24 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 12, 2026 | 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 |
| Jun 12, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · F-0583 |
| Jun 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 |
| Jun 12, 2026 | 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 |
| Jun 12, 2026 | 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 |
| Jun 12, 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. · F-0656 |
| Jun 12, 2026 | 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 |
| Mar 20, 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. · from a complaint · F-0684 |
| Feb 25, 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. · from a complaint · F-0684 |
| Jul 17, 2025 | 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 |
| Mar 13, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Mar 13, 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 |
| Mar 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. · F-0755 |
| Mar 13, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems. · F-0756 |
| Mar 13, 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 |
| Dec 26, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0658 |
| Dec 26, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0660 |
| Dec 26, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Jun 8, 2023 | 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 |
| Jun 8, 2023 | 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 |
| Jun 8, 2023 | 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 |
| Jun 8, 2023 | 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. · F-0804 |
| Jun 8, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Jun 8, 2023 | 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
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (5 → 7).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 6
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 3
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 6
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 9
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 | 6 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 3 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 6 | 0 | E |
| 2026 | 9 | 0 | 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)
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: 4.30
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.54
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.95
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) | 4.30 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 38% in California; top 29% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.54 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 40% in California; bottom 44% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.95 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 36% in California; top 24% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.46 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 37% in California; top 39% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 19.7 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 7% in California; top 3% 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 3.97, RN 0.50, weekend 3.65.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.97 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: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · 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 Springs Road Healthcare. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Airey, Connor | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2024 |
| Airey, Connor | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2024 |
| Anierdes, Princes Valerie | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2023 |
| Anierdes, Princes Valerie | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2023 |
| Ballesteros, Francia | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2023 |
| Ballesteros, Francia | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2023 |
| Calabazaron, Redentor | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/14/2022 |
| Calabazaron, Redentor | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/14/2022 |
| Dhugga, Gurpreet | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2023 |
| Dhugga, Gurpreet | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2023 |
| Espinoza, Desire | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/18/2025 |
| Espinoza, Desire | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/18/2025 |
| Secena, Edgar | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2023 |
| Secena, Edgar | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2023 |
| Thapa, Nischal | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/06/2024 |
| Thapa, Nischal | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/06/2024 |
All 16 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 BVHC, LLC — 12 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.
- Vista Post Acute — Hayward, CA · overall 4/5
- Casa Coloma Health Care Center — Rancho Cordova, CA · overall 2/5
- Double Tree Post Acute Care Center — Sacramento, CA · overall 2/5abuse
- Forest Hill Manor Health Center — Pacific Grove, CA · overall 4/5
- Haven Post Acute — San Bernardino, CA · overall 4/5
- Heartwood Avenue Healthcare — Vallejo, CA · overall 3/5
- Katherine Healthcare — Salinas, CA · overall 2/5
- Oceanview Post Acute — Pacific Grove, CA · overall 5/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 11 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.
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "How do you protect residents' privacy, both in their medical records and in day-to-day care?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "What is your current medication error rate, and what have you changed to bring errors down?"
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 20% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 16 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 56 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heartwood Avenue Healthcare | 1.1 mi | Vallejo, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Solano Post Acute | 1.7 mi | Vallejo, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Alhambra Post Acute | 8.7 mi | Martinez, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Greenridge Post Acute | 10.7 mi | El Sobrante, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Legacy Post Acute Care | 11.0 mi | Martinez, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Dept of State Hospitals - Napa D/P SNF | 11.5 mi | Napa, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| San Pablo Healthcare & Wellness Center | 11.8 mi | San Pablo, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Creekside Healthcare Center | 11.9 mi | San Pablo, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Vale Healthcare Center | 12.0 mi | San Pablo, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| The Meadows of Napa Valley | 12.3 mi | Napa, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Richmond Post Acute Care | 12.8 mi | Richmond, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Bayberry Skilled Nursing & Healthcare Center | 13.7 mi | Concord, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Solano, CA — 9 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Vacaville Convalescent and Rehabilitation Center — Vacaville, CA · overall 4/5
- Vacaville Ranch Post Acute — Vacaville, CA · overall 4/5
- Emmanuel Care Center - Travis — Fairfield, CA · overall —/5
- Fairfield Post Acute Rehabilitation — Fairfield, CA · overall 4/5
- Greenfield Care Center of Fairfield — Fairfield, CA · overall —/5SFF
- Laurel Creek Health Center — Fairfield, 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 055222.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).