CaliforniaWalnut Creek

Tampico Healthcare Center

130 Tampico Street, Walnut Creek, CA 94598 · Contra Costa County · 128 certified beds · avg 116 residents/day · certified since Jul 9, 1970

Part of chain: AARON MAYER (7 facilities, chain avg rating 3.1★)

3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.28
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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

Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5

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.

All citations in the current public record (40)

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
Mar 5, 2026D · 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
Jan 28, 2026D · 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. · from a complaint
Dec 11, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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. · from a complaint
Mar 27, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Mar 27, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Mar 27, 2025E · 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.
Mar 27, 2025D · 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.
Mar 27, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Mar 27, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not fully assess residents on time — a complete assessment of health, abilities, and needs is required when a resident is first admitted and at least once every 12 months after that.
Mar 27, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Mar 27, 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.
Mar 27, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not help a resident get vision and hearing services — such as eye exams, glasses, hearing tests, or hearing aids.
Mar 27, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Mar 27, 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.
Mar 27, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide routine dental care and 24-hour emergency dental care for residents.
Mar 27, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide or arrange dental services for its residents. Nursing homes are responsible for making sure residents can get dental care.
Apr 3, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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
Jan 9, 2024D · Potential for harm, 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
Dec 13, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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
Dec 13, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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
Sep 14, 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
Aug 3, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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. · from a complaint
Aug 3, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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. · from a complaint
Aug 3, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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. · from a complaint
Dec 8, 2022F · Potential for harm, 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.
Dec 8, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Dec 8, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Dec 8, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away.
Dec 8, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
Dec 8, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Dec 8, 2022D · 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.
Dec 8, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Feb 6, 2020E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Feb 6, 2020E · 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.
Feb 6, 2020E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Feb 6, 2020D · 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.
Feb 6, 2020D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not give residents (and their representatives and the ombudsman, a state advocate for residents) proper advance notice before a transfer or discharge, including information about their right to appeal.
Feb 6, 2020D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it.
Feb 6, 2020D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication.
Feb 6, 2020D · 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.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (8 → 13).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202080E
202280F
202360E
202420E
2025140E
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)

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

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)4.284.313.95top 39% in California; top 30% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.650.610.69top 28% in California; top 42% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.833.903.50top 44% in California; top 28% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.440.510.48top 40% in California; top 41% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)32.336.745.8top 38% in California; top 18% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)33.338.142.9top 40% in California; top 33% in the U.S.

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 4.47, RN 0.68, weekend 4.00. Staffing rating: 4/5.

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: 5/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Individual

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Ahm TrustOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%08/01/2021
Mayer, AaronIndividualDirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE05/22/2021
130 Tampico, LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE05/22/2021
Ahm TrustOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE08/01/2021
Chandra, SmitaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2022
Chandra, SmitaIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE10/01/2022
Ellks, MarjorieIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE02/03/2023
Ellks, MarjorieIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/03/2023
Mayer, AaronIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE08/01/2021
Mayer, AaronIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE05/22/2021
Mayer, AaronIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE05/22/2021
Mayer, RonaldIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE05/22/2021
MCP Wayside, LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE07/28/2022
Pacificare Health Management LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE05/22/2021
The Compliance Institute LLCOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE07/03/2023
The Compliance Institute LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE07/03/2023

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
La Casa via Transitional Care Center0.1 miWalnut Creek, CA★★★★★4/5
Pleasant Hill Post Acute1.6 miPleasant Hill, CA★★★★☆3/5
Rosewood Post Acute1.9 miPleasant Hill, CA★★★★☆4/5
Shadelands Post Acute2.1 miWalnut Creek, CA★★★★☆3/5
Walnut Creek Skilled Nursing & Rehabilitation Cent2.5 miWalnut Creek, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Rossmoor Post Acute2.5 miWalnut Creek, CA★★★★★4/5
Tice Valley Post Acute2.6 miWalnut Creek, CA★★★★★4/5
Concord Post Acute3.4 miConcord, CA★★☆☆☆2/5abuse
Diablo Valley Post Acute4.6 miConcord, CA★★☆☆☆1/5abuse
Bayberry Skilled Nursing & Healthcare Center4.6 miConcord, CA★★★★☆3/5
Willow Pass Healthcare Center5.2 miConcord, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Moraga Post Acute5.5 miMoraga, CA★★★★★4/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Walnut Creek →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 056213.