How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
The Win Post-Acute
410 North Winchester Boulevard, Santa Clara, CA 95050 (opens Google Maps) · Santa Clara County · (408) 248-3736· 133 certified beds · avg 131 residents/day · certified since Oct 1, 1969 · 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: SPYGLASS HEALTHCARE (9 facilities, chain avg rating 3.1★)
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected May 9, 2025
2
Serious findings on record
most recent May 30, 2024
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.60
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: 5/5 · 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.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · May 30, 2024 · 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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · May 30, 2024 · 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 (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Jun 24, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jun 11, 2021 · F-0607
The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Jun 11, 2021 · F-0607
The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection.
Why it matters: Without working prevention policies, mistreatment is more likely to happen and less likely to be caught.
Severity (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 35 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
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
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
View all 35 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 24, 2026 | 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 |
| Jul 28, 2025 | 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 |
| May 9, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| May 9, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required. · F-0730 |
| May 9, 2025 | 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 |
| May 9, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep residents' medications free from unnecessary drugs. Residents should only take medicines they truly need, at the right dose, for a clear reason. · F-0757 |
| May 9, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them. · F-0867 |
| May 9, 2025 | 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 |
| May 9, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0657 |
| May 9, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · F-0686 |
| May 9, 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 |
| May 9, 2025 | 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 |
| May 9, 2025 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms. · F-0912 |
| May 30, 2024 | ▲ G · Actual 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 |
| Feb 8, 2024 | 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 |
| Feb 8, 2024 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms. · F-0912 |
| Sep 26, 2023 | 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 |
| Sep 26, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 · F-0745 |
| Jun 11, 2021 | ▲ G · Actual harm, isolated | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · F-0607 |
| Jun 11, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Jun 11, 2021 | 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 |
| Jun 11, 2021 | 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 |
| Jun 11, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. · F-0801 |
| Jun 11, 2021 | 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 |
| Jun 11, 2021 | 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 |
| Jun 11, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0558 |
| Jun 11, 2021 | 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 |
| Jun 11, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0688 |
| Jun 11, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0693 |
| Jun 11, 2021 | 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 |
| Jun 11, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0803 |
| Jun 11, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives. · F-0806 |
| Jun 11, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. · F-0814 |
| Jun 11, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms. · F-0912 |
| Jun 11, 2021 | 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 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (2 → 10).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2021
All citations: 17
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2023
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 3
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2025
All citations: 12
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 1
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 17 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2023 | 2 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 3 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2025 | 12 | 0 | E |
| 2026 | 1 | 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: 3.60
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.95
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.34
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) | 3.60 | 4.31 | 3.95 | bottom 15% in California; bottom 42% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.95 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 12% in California; top 18% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.34 | 3.90 | 3.50 | bottom 18% in California; bottom 49% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.94 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 8% in California; top 7% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 45.6 | 36.7 | 45.8 | bottom 23% in California; bottom 48% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 61.8 | 38.1 | 42.9 | bottom 13% in California; bottom 19% 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 4.01, RN 1.06, weekend 3.72.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.01 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.
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: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for The Win 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 - Corporation · changed ownership in the last 12 months
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| McCormack, Ryan | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 40% | 08/01/2025 |
| O'Shea, Brady | Individual | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 5% | 08/01/2025 |
| Spyglass Healthcare LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 08/01/2025 |
| Awerbuck, Matthew | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2025 |
| Awerbuck, Matthew | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2025 |
| Estanilla, Myrtle | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2025 |
| Estanilla, Myrtle | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2025 |
| Green, Christopher | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2025 |
| Green, Christopher | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2025 |
| Kikuta, Bradley | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2025 |
| Kikuta, Bradley | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2025 |
| Lagliba, Mark | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2025 |
| Lagliba, Mark | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2025 |
| Luistro, Roxanne | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2025 |
| Luistro, Roxanne | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2025 |
| McCormack, Ryan | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2025 |
| Oscherowitz, Avishai | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2025 |
| Oscherowitz, Avishai | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2025 |
| Sam, Soeun | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2025 |
| Sam, Soeun | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2025 |
Showing 20 of 22 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 2 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 Spyglass Healthcare — 9 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.
- Bridgewood Post Acute — Sacramento, CA · overall 3/5abuse
- Capital Post Acute — Sacramento, CA · overall 2/5abuse
- Cedarwood Post Acute — Sacramento, CA · overall 3/5
- Eden Healthcare Center — Hayward, CA · overall 2/5abuse
- Golden Harbor Healthcare Center — Hayward, CA · overall 2/5
- Morgan Hill Healthcare Center — Morgan Hill, CA · overall 4/5
- Mountain View Healthcare Center — Mountain View, CA · overall 3/5
- Pacific Hills Post Acute — Morgan Hill, CA · overall 4/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "Tell me about this abuse or neglect citation — what happened, and what specific changes did you make afterward?"
- "What specific steps do you take to prevent abuse and neglect, and how are staff trained on them?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "When abuse or theft is suspected, who do you notify, how fast, and how do you inform the family?"
- "How many residents here use oxygen or breathing equipment, and who checks that equipment each shift?"
- "How often do you evaluate your nurse aides and what ongoing training do they receive?"
- "How does your pharmacist review residents' medications, and how quickly can you fill new or urgent prescriptions?"
- "How often is each resident's medication list reviewed, and who decides when a drug can be reduced or stopped?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the California midpoint — how does the weekend schedule differ from a weekday?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 46% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "CMS records an ownership change here in the last 12 months — what changed for residents and staff?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 22 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 57 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Skyline Healthcare Center - San Jose | 0.8 mi | San Jose, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| O'Connor Hospital D/P SNF | 0.8 mi | San Jose, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Courtyard Care Center | 1.4 mi | San Jose, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| White Blossom Care Center | 2.0 mi | San Jose, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| A Grace Sub Acute & Skilled Care | 2.2 mi | San Jose, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Creekside Post-Acute | 2.4 mi | San Jose, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Empress Care Center, LLC | 2.5 mi | San Jose, CA | ★★★★☆ | 2/5 | |
| The Redwoods Post-Acute | 3.1 mi | San Jose, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Baywood Post Acute | 3.6 mi | Campbell, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Santa Clara Post Acute | 3.8 mi | Santa Clara, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Westwood Post Acute | 3.9 mi | San Jose, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| San Jose Healthcare & Wellness Center | 3.9 mi | San Jose, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Santa Clara, CA — 50 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Vasona Creek Healthcare Center — Los Gatos, CA · overall 2/5
- VI at Palo Alto — Palo Alto, CA · overall 5/5
- Villa Siena — Mountain View, CA · overall 1/5
- Vista Manor Nursing Center — San Jose, CA · overall 5/5
- Webster House — Palo Alto, CA · overall 5/5
- Woodlands Healthcare Center — Los Gatos, 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 055645.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).