How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Tice Valley Post Acute
1975 Tice Valley Blvd., Walnut Creek, CA 94595 (opens Google Maps) · Contra Costa County · (925) 906-0200· 120 certified beds · avg 117 residents/day · certified since Aug 7, 1997 · 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: PACS GROUP (274 facilities, chain avg rating 2.9★)
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Dec 11, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.02
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.
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 28 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility was not properly licensed, or did not operate in compliance with federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and accepted professional standards. · from a complaint F-0836
The 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 F-0755
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. · from a complaint F-0677
View all 28 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 17, 2026 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility was not properly licensed, or did not operate in compliance with federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and accepted professional standards. · from a complaint · F-0836 |
| Jun 17, 2026 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0755 |
| May 7, 2026 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0677 |
| Dec 11, 2025 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility was not properly licensed, or did not operate in compliance with federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and accepted professional standards. · F-0836 |
| Dec 11, 2025 | 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 |
| Dec 11, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · F-0698 |
| Dec 11, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not prepare and serve food in a form that meets each resident's individual needs — for example, chopped, pureed, or softened food for residents with chewing or swallowing problems. · F-0805 |
| Dec 11, 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 |
| Jan 15, 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. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Jun 20, 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 |
| Jun 20, 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 |
| Jun 20, 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 |
| Jun 20, 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 |
| Jun 20, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility allowed residents to lose the ability to do daily activities — like bathing, dressing, and eating — when there was no medical reason for the decline. Good care helps residents keep the abilities they have. · F-0676 |
| May 17, 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. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Sep 12, 2023 | 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 |
| Aug 16, 2023 | 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 |
| Aug 16, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 · F-0755 |
| Mar 4, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Mar 4, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692 |
| Mar 4, 2022 | 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 |
| Mar 4, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 4, 2022 | 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 |
| Mar 4, 2022 | 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 |
| Mar 4, 2022 | 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 |
| Mar 4, 2022 | 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 |
| Mar 4, 2022 | 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 4, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (5 → 5).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2022
All citations: 10
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 3
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 6
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 6
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 3
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 10 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 3 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 6 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 6 | 0 | F |
| 2026 | 3 | 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: 4.02
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.60
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.58
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) | 4.02 | 4.31 | 3.95 | bottom 43% in California; top 39% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.60 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 33% in California; top 49% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.58 | 3.90 | 3.50 | bottom 37% in California; top 38% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.49 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 31% in California; top 33% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 36.5 | 36.7 | 45.8 | bottom 49% in California; top 28% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 36.8 | 38.1 | 42.9 | top 50% in California; top 41% 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 4.25, RN 0.63, weekend 3.78.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.25 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: 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 Tice Valley 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jergensen, Joshua | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2024 |
| Jergensen, Joshua | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Londono, Adriano | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/03/2025 |
| Londono, Adriano | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/03/2025 |
| Londono, Adriano | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/03/2025 |
| Mitchell, John | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2024 |
| Mitchell, John | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Oyler, Abraham | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2025 |
| Oyler, Abraham | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/05/2025 |
| Patel, Ashish | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2025 |
| Patel, Ashish | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2024 |
| Patel, Ashish | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/05/2025 |
| Providence Administrative Consulting Services INC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/01/2024 |
| Truist Bank | Organization | 5% or Greater Mortgage Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/07/2023 |
All 14 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Pacs Group — 274 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.
- Trellis Chino — Chino, CA · overall 5/5
- University Care Center — San Diego, CA · overall 5/5
- Valley Pointe Nursing & Rehabilitation Center — Castro Valley, CA · overall 5/5
- Valley View Post Acute — El Monte, CA · overall 3/5
- Vasona Creek Healthcare Center — Los Gatos, CA · overall 2/5
- Victorian Post Acute — San Francisco, CA · overall 5/5
- Villa Las Palmas Healthcare Center — El Cajon, CA · overall 3/5
- Vineyard Post Acute — Petaluma, CA · overall 3/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 273 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.
- "Can you tell me about this citation and confirm your license and compliance status today?"
- "How does your pharmacist review residents' medications, and how quickly can you fill new or urgent prescriptions?"
- "How many aides are on each shift, and how do you make sure every resident gets timely help with bathing, dressing, and meals?"
- "How do you coordinate and monitor care for residents who receive dialysis?"
- "How do you handle residents who need modified food textures, and how do you make those meals appetizing?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
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 37% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 14 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 92 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Walnut Creek Skilled Nursing & Rehabilitation Cent | 0.1 mi | Walnut Creek, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Rossmoor Post Acute | 0.1 mi | Walnut Creek, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Tampico Healthcare Center | 2.6 mi | Walnut Creek, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| La Casa via Transitional Care Center | 2.7 mi | Walnut Creek, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Moraga Post Acute | 3.4 mi | Moraga, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Pleasant Hill Post Acute | 3.9 mi | Pleasant Hill, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Rosewood Post Acute | 3.9 mi | Pleasant Hill, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Shadelands Post Acute | 4.6 mi | Walnut Creek, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Danville Post-Acute Rehab | 5.3 mi | Danville, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Orinda Care Center, LLC | 5.6 mi | Orinda, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Concord Post Acute | 6.0 mi | Concord, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Bayberry Skilled Nursing & Healthcare Center | 7.1 mi | Concord, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 |
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
- 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 555710.