CaliforniaUkiah

Ukiah Post Acute

1349 South Dora St., Ukiah, CA 95482 · Mendocino County · 57 certified beds · avg 44 residents/day · certified since Apr 12, 1967

Part of chain: THE ENSIGN GROUP (342 facilities, chain avg rating 3.2★)

4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
3
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.19
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.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Actual harm, repeated · Mar 20, 2023 · F-0686

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.

Why it matters: Bedsores are painful, can become deeply infected, and in serious cases can be life-threatening.

Severity (H): Multiple residents were actually harmed by the same failure — a pattern of real harm, not an isolated incident.

Corrected: May 19, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Mar 20, 2023 · F-0684

The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.

Why it matters: Care that strays from doctor's orders or ignores the resident's wishes can lead to declining health and avoidable harm.

Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Apr 19, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Mar 20, 2023 · F-0689

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Apr 19, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (40)

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
Jun 12, 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
May 29, 2026D · 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. · from a complaint
Feb 13, 2026D · 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.
Dec 10, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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
Mar 27, 2025D · 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. · from a complaint
Jan 24, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Jan 24, 2025F · 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.
Jan 24, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them.
Jan 24, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices.
Jan 24, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Jan 24, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Jan 24, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service.
Jan 24, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives.
Jan 24, 2025E · 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.
Jan 24, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate.
Jan 24, 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.
Apr 11, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · from a complaint
Sep 11, 2023F · 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. · from a complaint
Sep 11, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. · from a complaint
Sep 11, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service. · from a complaint
Sep 11, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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. · from a complaint
Sep 11, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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. · from a complaint
Sep 11, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · from a complaint
Sep 11, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · from a complaint
Mar 20, 2023▲ H · Actual harm, repeatedThe 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.
Mar 20, 2023▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Mar 20, 2023▲ G · Actual 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 20, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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 20, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Mar 20, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation.
Mar 20, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do.
Mar 20, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Mar 20, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Mar 20, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care.
Mar 20, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service.
Mar 20, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Mar 20, 2023E · 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 20, 2023D · 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.
Mar 20, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.
Mar 20, 2023D · 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.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (11 → 1).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2023233H ▲
202410E
2025130F
202630D

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)4.194.313.95top 45% in California; top 32% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.280.610.69bottom 8% in California; bottom 7% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.693.903.50bottom 46% in California; top 34% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.270.510.48bottom 27% in California; bottom 26% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)51.636.745.8bottom 11% in California; bottom 33% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)0.038.142.9

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 4.15, RN 0.27, weekend 3.65. Staffing rating: 3/5.

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: 4/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Bailey, GlenIndividualManaging Control - Governing BodyNOT APPLICABLE01/15/2020
Bailey, GlenIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/15/2020
Bailey, GlenIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/15/2020
Burnam, SoonIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE09/25/2006
Burnam, SoonIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE07/11/2025
Caretrust GP LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2002
Caretrust Reit INCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2002
Ctr Partnership LPOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2002
Divine Medical Staffing Services LLCOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2002
Divine Medical Staffing Services LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2002
Ensign Services INCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE08/01/2002
Keetch, ChadIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE03/01/2011
Port, BarryIndividualIndividual Is an Owner, Partner or Trustee of Any ADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE07/11/2025
Rao, SeemaIndividualManaging Control - Governing BodyNOT APPLICABLE06/30/2023
Rao, SeemaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/30/2023
Rao, SeemaIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE06/30/2023
South Dora Health Holdings LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2002
Twomagnets LLCOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2002
Twomagnets LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2002
Willits, AdamIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE09/09/2024

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
Redwood Cove Healthcare Center0.3 miUkiah, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Lakeport Post Acute16.4 miLakeport, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Rocky Point Care Center16.4 miLakeport, CA★★★☆☆2/5abuse

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Ukiah →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 055734.