How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
The Grove Post-Acute
124 Walnut Street, Woodland, CA 95695 (opens Google Maps) · Yolo County · (530) 662-9161· 140 certified beds · avg 125 residents/day · certified since Jun 1, 1978 · 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: LINKS HEALTHCARE GROUP (32 facilities, chain avg rating 2.9★)
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected May 8, 2026
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.16
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: 4/5 · 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 45 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 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
The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. F-0584
View all 45 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 |
|---|---|---|
| May 8, 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 |
| May 8, 2026 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| May 8, 2026 | 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 |
| May 8, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0627 |
| May 8, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure its nurse aides had the skills needed to care for residents, including training in dementia care and abuse prevention. · F-0947 |
| Apr 2, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Apr 2, 2026 | 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 |
| Sep 2, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| Mar 7, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Mar 7, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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. · F-0919 |
| Mar 7, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0623 |
| Mar 7, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0640 |
| Mar 7, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0645 |
| Mar 7, 2025 | 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 |
| Mar 7, 2025 | 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 |
| Mar 7, 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 7, 2025 | 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 7, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · F-0760 |
| Mar 7, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 7, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not bring in qualified outside professionals to provide a required service when it didn't have a qualified professional on staff. · F-0840 |
| Mar 7, 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 |
| Mar 7, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · F-0921 |
| Jul 3, 2024 | 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 |
| Jul 3, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 · F-0641 |
| May 15, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · from a complaint · F-0600 |
| May 15, 2024 | 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 |
| Apr 12, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Apr 12, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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. · F-0690 |
| Apr 12, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Apr 12, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Apr 12, 2024 | 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 |
| Apr 12, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804 |
| Apr 12, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Apr 12, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide or arrange specialized rehabilitation services — such as physical, occupational, or speech therapy — for residents who needed them. · F-0825 |
| Apr 12, 2024 | 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 |
| Apr 12, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0640 |
| Apr 12, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641 |
| Apr 12, 2024 | 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 |
| Apr 12, 2024 | 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 |
| Apr 12, 2024 | 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 |
| Apr 12, 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. · F-0689 |
| Apr 12, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692 |
| Apr 12, 2024 | 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 |
| Apr 12, 2024 | C · Potential for minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. · F-0814 |
| Sep 26, 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. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (14 → 5).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 22
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 15
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 7
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 | 1 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 22 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 15 | 0 | E |
| 2026 | 7 | 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: 4.16
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.64
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.84
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) | 4.16 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 47% in California; top 33% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.64 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 29% in California; top 43% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.84 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 43% in California; top 28% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.50 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 31% in California; top 33% 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 (%) | 33.3 | 38.1 | 42.9 | top 40% in California; top 33% 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 4.07, RN 0.63, weekend 3.76.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.07 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: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for The Grove Post-Acute. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beardsley, Mary | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/22/2023 |
| Beardsley, Mary | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/22/2023 |
| Bernholz, Victoria | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/22/2023 |
| Bernholz, Victoria | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/22/2023 |
| Burrup, Dawson | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/22/2023 |
| Burrup, Dawson | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/22/2023 |
| Carter, Melissa | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/22/2023 |
| Carter, Melissa | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/22/2023 |
| Cheema, Chandandeep | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/22/2023 |
| Cheema, Chandandeep | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/22/2023 |
| Forbright Bank | Organization | 5% or Greater Security Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/22/2023 |
| Frojelin, Antonette | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/22/2023 |
| Frojelin, Antonette | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/22/2023 |
| Links Healthcare Group LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/22/2023 |
| Links Healthcare Group LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/25/2025 |
| Links Support Services, LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/22/2023 |
| Links Support Services, LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/25/2025 |
| Rodriguez, Curtis | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/22/2023 |
| Rodriguez, Curtis | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/22/2023 |
| Rodriguez, Curtis | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/22/2023 |
Showing 20 of 25 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 5 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Links Healthcare Group — 32 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.
- The Orchards Post-Acute — Bakersfield, CA · overall 2/5
- The Redwoods Post-Acute — San Jose, CA · overall 3/5
- The Ridge Post Acute — San Jose, CA · overall 5/5
- The Shores Post-Acute — San Diego, CA · overall 3/5
- The Springs Post-Acute — Norwalk, CA · overall 1/5
- The Vineyards Healthcare Center — Livermore, CA · overall 5/5
- Westwood Post Acute — San Jose, CA · overall 2/5
- Applingwood Post Acute — Cordova, TN · overall 2/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 31 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?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "Can we tour the resident rooms, bathrooms, and common areas today, including areas not on the usual tour route?"
- "Before a resident is discharged or transferred, how do you make sure the new place can actually meet their needs?"
- "What specific training do your nurse aides complete in dementia care and abuse prevention, and how often is it refreshed?"
- "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
- "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
- "Can you show me the call buttons in the bathrooms and bathing areas, and tell me your average response time when one is pressed?"
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 41% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 25 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 17 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cottonwood Healthcare Center | 0.8 mi | Woodland, CA | ★★★★★ | 3/5 | |
| Woodland Post-Acute | 0.8 mi | Woodland, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| University Retirement Community at Davis | 8.3 mi | Davis, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Courtyard Health Care Center | 9.2 mi | Davis, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| River Bend Nursing Center | 14.8 mi | West Sacramento, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Pioneer House | 16.8 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Cedarwood Post Acute | 17.4 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Greenhaven Healthcare Center | 17.7 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| North Pointe Care Center | 18.0 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Windsor Care Center of Sacramento | 18.0 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Advanced Health Care of Sacramento | 18.2 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Mid-Town Oaks Post-Acute | 18.3 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 |
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 055438.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).