How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
The Reutlinger Community
4000 Camino Tassajara, Danville, CA 94506 (opens Google Maps) · Contra Costa County · (925) 648-2800· 60 certified beds · avg 46 residents/day · certified since Jan 1, 1967 · 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 →
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Nov 21, 2024
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
5.15
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 21 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not give residents proper notice about what Medicare or Medicaid covers, or about charges the resident might owe for services that aren't covered. · from a complaint F-0582
The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint F-0842
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
View all 21 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 1, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not give residents proper notice about what Medicare or Medicaid covers, or about charges the resident might owe for services that aren't covered. · from a complaint · F-0582 |
| Jun 1, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint · F-0842 |
| 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 |
| Jan 13, 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. · from a complaint · F-0656 |
| Feb 12, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · from a complaint · F-0838 |
| Nov 21, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Nov 21, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Nov 21, 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 |
| Nov 21, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide routine dental care and 24-hour emergency dental care for residents. · F-0790 |
| Nov 21, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not make sure special medical diets — like low-sodium or diabetic diets — were properly ordered by the resident's doctor or managed by a qualified dietitian as state law allows. · F-0808 |
| Nov 21, 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 |
| Nov 21, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Oct 17, 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 |
| Oct 17, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint · F-0842 |
| Oct 17, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0880 |
| Nov 17, 2022 | 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 |
| Nov 17, 2022 | 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 |
| May 9, 2019 | 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 |
| May 9, 2019 | 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 |
| May 9, 2019 | 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. · F-0684 |
| May 9, 2019 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The 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. · F-0578 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (2 → 7).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2019
All citations: 4
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2022
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 10
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 4
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 4 | 0 | E |
| 2022 | 2 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 10 | 0 | F |
| 2025 | 1 | 0 | D |
| 2026 | 4 | 0 | D |
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: 5.15
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 1.12
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 4.34
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) | 5.15 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 12% in California; top 11% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 1.12 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 8% in California; top 11% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.34 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 19% in California; top 15% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.43 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 40% in California; top 42% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 55.4 | 36.7 | 45.8 | bottom 6% in California; bottom 24% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 56.3 | 38.1 | 42.9 | bottom 19% in California; bottom 26% 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 4.83, RN 1.05, weekend 4.07.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.83 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: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 3/5 · 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 Reutlinger Community. 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 →
Non profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eskaton | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 100% | 04/21/2020 |
| Baik, Ginna | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Baik, Ginna | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Eskaton Properties Incorporated | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/21/2020 |
| Eskaton Properties Incorporated | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/12/2025 |
| Garberson, Thomas | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2023 |
| Garberson, Thomas | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2023 |
| Garberson, Thomas | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2023 |
| Hansen Hunter LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/25/2021 |
| Heffernan, Nancy | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/15/2021 |
| Heffernan, Nancy | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/15/2021 |
| Hewitt, Maureen | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/15/2021 |
| Hewitt, Maureen | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/15/2021 |
| Jenkins, Mark | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/21/2020 |
| Jenkins, Mark | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/21/2020 |
| Jenkins, Mark | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/21/2020 |
| Kallio, Brian | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/21/2021 |
| Kallio, Brian | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/21/2021 |
| Kazemi, Mustafa | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/15/2019 |
| Kazemi, Mustafa | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/15/2019 |
Showing 20 of 41 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 21 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "Before any service that isn't covered by Medicare or Medicaid, how will you notify us and get our agreement?"
- "How do you keep residents' medical records accurate, complete, and secure?"
- "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "How do you decide you have enough staff and resources for your resident population, including nights and weekends?"
- "How do you verify that your nurses and aides have the skills to care for residents with needs like my family member's?"
- "Does a pharmacist review every resident's medications and chart monthly, and how are their concerns acted on?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
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 55% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 41 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 83 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Danville Post-Acute Rehab | 5.7 mi | Danville, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Creekview Skilled Nursing | 7.7 mi | Pleasanton, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Pleasanton Nursing and Rehabilitation Center | 9.9 mi | Pleasanton, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Tice Valley Post Acute | 10.7 mi | Walnut Creek, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| The Vineyards Healthcare Center | 10.7 mi | Livermore, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Walnut Creek Skilled Nursing & Rehabilitation Cent | 10.8 mi | Walnut Creek, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Rossmoor Post Acute | 10.8 mi | Walnut Creek, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Stratford Villa Post-Acute | 10.9 mi | Livermore, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Avondale Villa Post-Acute | 10.9 mi | Livermore, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Shadelands Post Acute | 11.2 mi | Walnut Creek, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Tampico Healthcare Center | 11.2 mi | Walnut Creek, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| St John Kronstadt Convalescent Center | 11.3 mi | Castro Valley, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Contra Costa, CA — 30 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Vale Healthcare Center — San Pablo, CA · overall 3/5
- Willow Pass Healthcare Center — Concord, CA · overall 3/5
- Alhambra Post Acute — Martinez, CA · overall 5/5
- Bayberry Skilled Nursing & Healthcare Center — Concord, CA · overall 4/5
- Concord Post Acute — Concord, CA · overall 2/5abuse
- Creekside Healthcare Center — San Pablo, 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 055534.