California ›Woodland

The Grove Post-Acute

124 Walnut Street, Woodland, CA 95695 · Yolo County · 140 certified beds · avg 125 residents/day · certified since Jun 1, 1978

Part of chain: LINKS HEALTHCARE GROUP (32 facilities, chain avg rating 2.9★)

4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.16
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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

Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · 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 (45)

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
May 8, 2026F · 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.
May 8, 2026F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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 8, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
May 8, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure a transfer or discharge met the resident's needs and preferences, or did not properly prepare the resident to leave safely.
May 8, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure its nurse aides had the skills needed to care for residents, including training in dementia care and abuse prevention.
Apr 2, 2026D · 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
Apr 2, 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
Sep 2, 2025D · 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
Mar 7, 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 7, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have a working call system — the button or cord residents use to summon help — in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
Mar 7, 2025D · 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.
Mar 7, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not enter each resident's assessment information into the required format and send it to the state within 7 days of completing the assessment, as the rules require.
Mar 7, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Mar 7, 2025D · 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.
Mar 7, 2025D · 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.
Mar 7, 2025D · 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.
Mar 7, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Mar 7, 2025D · 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.
Mar 7, 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 7, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not bring in qualified outside professionals to provide a required service when it didn't have a qualified professional on staff.
Mar 7, 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.
Mar 7, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors.
Jul 3, 2024D · 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
Jul 3, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · from a complaint
May 15, 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
May 15, 2024D · 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
Apr 12, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
Apr 12, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections.
Apr 12, 2024E · 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.
Apr 12, 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.
Apr 12, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Apr 12, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Apr 12, 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.
Apr 12, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide or arrange specialized rehabilitation services — such as physical, occupational, or speech therapy — for residents who needed them.
Apr 12, 2024E · 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.
Apr 12, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not enter each resident's assessment information into the required format and send it to the state within 7 days of completing the assessment, as the rules require.
Apr 12, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives.
Apr 12, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Apr 12, 2024D · 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.
Apr 12, 2024D · 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.
Apr 12, 2024D · 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.
Apr 12, 2024D · 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.
Apr 12, 2024D · 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.
Apr 12, 2024C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
Sep 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

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (14 → 5).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202310D
2024220E
2025150E
202670F

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)4.164.313.95top 47% in California; top 33% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.640.610.69top 29% in California; top 43% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.843.903.50top 43% in California; top 28% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.500.510.48top 31% in California; top 33% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)40.636.745.8bottom 36% in California; top 38% 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 4.07, RN 0.63, weekend 3.76. 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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Beardsley, MaryIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/22/2023
Beardsley, MaryIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE06/22/2023
Bernholz, VictoriaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/22/2023
Bernholz, VictoriaIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE06/22/2023
Burrup, DawsonIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/22/2023
Burrup, DawsonIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE06/22/2023
Carter, MelissaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/22/2023
Carter, MelissaIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE06/22/2023
Cheema, ChandandeepIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/22/2023
Cheema, ChandandeepIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE06/22/2023
Forbright BankOrganization5% or Greater Security InterestNOT APPLICABLE06/22/2023
Frojelin, AntonetteIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/22/2023
Frojelin, AntonetteIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE06/22/2023
Links Healthcare Group LLCOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/22/2023
Links Healthcare Group LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE06/25/2025
Links Support Services, LLCOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/22/2023
Links Support Services, LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE06/25/2025
Rodriguez, CurtisIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE06/22/2023
Rodriguez, CurtisIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/22/2023
Rodriguez, CurtisIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE06/22/2023

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
Cottonwood Healthcare Center0.8 miWoodland, CA★★★★★3/5
Woodland Post-Acute0.8 miWoodland, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
University Retirement Community at Davis8.3 miDavis, CA★★★★★4/5
Courtyard Health Care Center9.2 miDavis, CA★★★☆☆2/5abuse
River Bend Nursing Center14.8 miWest Sacramento, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Pioneer House16.8 miSacramento, CA★★★☆☆2/5abuse
Cedarwood Post Acute17.4 miSacramento, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Greenhaven Healthcare Center17.7 miSacramento, CA★★★☆☆2/5abuse
North Pointe Care Center18.0 miSacramento, CA★★☆☆☆1/5abuse
Windsor Care Center of Sacramento18.0 miSacramento, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Advanced Health Care of Sacramento18.2 miSacramento, CA★★★★★4/5
Mid-Town Oaks Post-Acute18.3 miSacramento, CA★★★☆☆2/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Woodland →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 055438.