California ›Banning

Sunrise Post Acute

3476 W. Wilson St., Banning, CA 92220 · Riverside County · 64 certified beds · avg 62 residents/day · certified since Jun 6, 1988

Part of chain: PACS GROUP (274 facilities, chain avg rating 2.9★)

1/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
4
Serious findings on record
$76,434
Fines, last 3 years
3.43
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · 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.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, one-off · May 14, 2025 · F-0600 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors.

Why it matters: Abuse and neglect cause direct physical and emotional harm and are among the most serious failures a nursing home can have.

Severity (J): Inspectors found a situation that put a resident's life or safety in immediate danger, affecting one or a few residents. The facility must fix it immediately — these citations often come with large fines.

Corrected: Jun 2, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has plan of correction)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, repeated · Aug 8, 2024 · F-0584

The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.

Why it matters: An unsafe or unclean environment affects residents' health, comfort, and dignity every single day.

Severity (K): A life-threatening or extremely dangerous situation affected several residents. Among the most serious findings an inspection can produce.

Corrected: Sep 1, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, facility-wide · Nov 4, 2021 · F-0812

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.

Why it matters: Unsafe food handling is one of the most common causes of food poisoning, which can be dangerous for frail residents.

Severity (L): A life-threatening or extremely dangerous situation existed throughout the facility. The single most serious citation CMS can issue.

Corrected: Dec 10, 2021 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · May 14, 2025 · F-0657 · triggered by a complaint

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.

Why it matters: Delays or gaps in care planning mean staff may work without a clear, current roadmap for the resident's daily care and treatment.

Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Jun 2, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has plan of correction)

All citations in the current public record (52)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Jun 23, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Jun 23, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Sep 11, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not conduct and document a facility-wide assessment of what staff, supplies, and resources it needs to care for its residents properly — during everyday operations, nights, weekends, and emergencies.
Sep 11, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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.
Sep 11, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail.
Sep 11, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not make sure residents actually saw their doctor face-to-face at all required visits. Doctors must examine nursing home residents in person on a regular schedule.
Sep 11, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Sep 11, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Sep 11, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Sep 11, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Sep 11, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it.
Sep 11, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.
Sep 11, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Sep 11, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide each resident with a nourishing, tasty, well-balanced diet that meets their daily nutritional and special dietary needs.
Sep 11, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Sep 11, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
May 14, 2025▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, one-offThe facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint
May 14, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe 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
May 14, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Jan 2, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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. · from a complaint
Jan 2, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Jan 2, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Dec 20, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not let a resident return after a hospital stay or approved leave that lasted longer than the facility's bed-hold policy allowed. Residents generally have the right to come back to the next available bed. · from a complaint
Oct 7, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · from a complaint
Aug 8, 2024▲ K · Immediate jeopardy, repeatedThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
Aug 8, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Aug 8, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service.
Aug 8, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Aug 8, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Aug 8, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Aug 8, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly.
Aug 8, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Aug 8, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident.
Aug 8, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.
Aug 8, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide routine dental care and 24-hour emergency dental care for residents.
Aug 8, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
May 13, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide the social services residents need — such as counseling, help with adjustment, or connecting to outside resources — to achieve the best possible quality of life. · from a complaint
Mar 26, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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. · from a complaint
Jan 4, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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
Nov 28, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Oct 26, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Oct 26, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Oct 26, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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. · from a complaint
Oct 23, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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. · from a complaint
Oct 23, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · from a complaint
Oct 12, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Sep 11, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint
Sep 5, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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. · from a complaint
Nov 4, 2021▲ L · Immediate jeopardy, facility-wideThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Nov 4, 2021F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility's menus did not meet residents' nutritional needs, or were not prepared in advance, followed as written, kept up to date, or reviewed by a dietician.
Nov 4, 2021F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not have a policy covering how food brought in by family and visitors is used and stored safely.
Nov 4, 2021D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (12 → 14).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202141L ▲
202390E
2024171K ▲
2025202J ▲
202620D

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)

2 fines totaling $76,434.

DateTypeAmount / length
May 14, 2025Fine$62,810
Aug 8, 2024Fine$13,624

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

MeasureThis facilityCalifornia avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)3.434.313.95bottom 8% in California; bottom 33% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.270.610.69bottom 7% in California; bottom 7% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.143.903.50bottom 9% in California; bottom 39% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.150.510.48bottom 3% in California; bottom 5% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)21.336.745.8top 9% in California; top 4% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)0.038.142.9—

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 3.94, RN 0.31, weekend 3.61. Staffing rating: 2/5.

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: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Apt, FrederickIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE06/15/2023
Hancock, MarkIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE06/15/2023
Mitchell, JohnIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE06/15/2023
Murray, JasonIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE06/15/2023
Sitanggang, NovieIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE06/15/2023
Sitanggang, NovieIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/15/2023

Questions to ask on your visit

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

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Sundance Creek Post Acute1.7 miBanning, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Vista Real Post Acute2.3 miBeaumont, CA★★★★☆3/5
Highland Springs Care Center3.6 miBeaumont, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Oak Glen Post Acute4.7 miCherry Valley, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Yucaipa Hills Post Acute9.1 miYucaipa, CA★★★★☆4/5
Creekside Post Acute9.2 miYucaipa, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Cedar Mountain Post Acute10.8 miYucaipa, CA★★★★☆4/5
The Bradley Gardens11.3 miSan Jacinto, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Hemet Valley Healthcare Center12.8 miHemet, CA★★★★☆4/5
Devonshire Care Center12.8 miHemet, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Banning →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555319.