How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
University Care Center
5602 University Ave, San Diego, CA 92105 (opens Google Maps) · San Diego County · (619) 583-1993· 87 certified beds · avg 80 residents/day · certified since Jan 10, 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 →
Part of chain: PACS GROUP (274 facilities, chain avg rating 2.9★)
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected May 7, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.63
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 42 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 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 protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. F-0842
View all 42 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Aug 4, 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. · from a complaint · F-0658 |
| May 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 |
| May 7, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842 |
| May 7, 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 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 |
| May 7, 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 7, 2025 | 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 |
| May 7, 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 |
| Jan 28, 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 |
| Jan 28, 2025 | 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 |
| Nov 13, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 · F-0726 |
| Nov 13, 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 |
| Jul 1, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0921 |
| Jun 19, 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. · from a complaint · F-0656 |
| Mar 19, 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. · from a complaint · F-0550 |
| Dec 4, 2023 | 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 |
| Dec 4, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · from a complaint · F-0697 |
| Oct 25, 2023 | 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 |
| Oct 25, 2023 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0695 |
| Sep 11, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide necessary behavioral health care and services — support for residents' mental and emotional wellbeing, including conditions like depression and anxiety. · from a complaint · F-0740 |
| Aug 10, 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 |
| Feb 17, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Feb 17, 2023 | 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 |
| Feb 17, 2023 | 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 |
| Feb 17, 2023 | 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 |
| Feb 17, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility transferred or discharged a resident without a valid reason, or failed to provide the required documentation and information when moving a resident out. · F-0622 |
| Feb 17, 2023 | 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 |
| Feb 17, 2023 | 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 |
| Feb 17, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | When a resident had a planned discharge, the facility did not make sure the necessary information was communicated to the resident and to the doctors or facility taking over their care. · F-0661 |
| Feb 17, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. · F-0679 |
| Feb 17, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not help a resident get vision and hearing services — such as eye exams, glasses, hearing tests, or hearing aids. · F-0685 |
| Feb 17, 2023 | 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 |
| Feb 17, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Feb 17, 2023 | 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 |
| Feb 17, 2023 | 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 17, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not designate a physician to serve as medical director — the doctor responsible for overseeing resident care policies and coordinating medical care across the facility. · F-0841 |
| Feb 17, 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. · F-0842 |
| Feb 17, 2023 | 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 |
| Feb 17, 2023 | 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 |
| Aug 23, 2019 | 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 |
| Aug 23, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Aug 23, 2019 | 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 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (18 → 7).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2019
All citations: 3
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 24
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 5
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 10
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 | 3 | 0 | D |
| 2023 | 24 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 5 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 10 | 0 | E |
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: 3.63
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.44
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.35
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) | 3.63 | 4.31 | 3.95 | bottom 16% in California; bottom 43% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.44 | 0.61 | 0.69 | bottom 42% in California; bottom 28% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.35 | 3.90 | 3.50 | bottom 18% in California; bottom 50% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.40 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 44% in California; top 47% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 36.4 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 50% in California; top 27% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 0.0 | 38.1 | 42.9 | top 1% in California; top 1% 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 4.04, RN 0.49, weekend 3.73.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.04 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: 5/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for University Care Center. 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
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Afshar, Pouya | Individual | Contracted Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/30/2023 |
| Apt, Frederick | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Day, Matthew | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/24/2024 |
| Hancock, Mark | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Jergensen, Joshua | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Mitchell, John | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
All 6 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.
- 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
- Visalia Post Acute — Visalia, CA · overall 1/5
- Waterman Canyon Post Acute — San Bernardino, CA · overall 4/5
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 what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "How do you keep residents' medical records accurate, complete, and secure?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "How do you prevent bedsores for residents who can't move themselves, and how often are at-risk residents repositioned?"
- "How do you decide when a feeding tube is truly needed, and how do staff care for residents who have one?"
- "Can I see the actual room my family member would live in before we decide?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
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 36% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (12 closest of 61 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jacob Healthcare Center | 0.2 mi | San Diego, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Arroyo Vista Nursing Center | 1.4 mi | San Diego, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Brighton Place San Diego | 2.0 mi | San Diego, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| La Mesa Healthcare Center | 2.3 mi | La Mesa, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Bella Vista Health Center | 3.0 mi | Lemon Grove, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Golden Hill Post Acute | 3.1 mi | San Diego, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Parkway Hills Nursing & Rehabilitation | 3.4 mi | La Mesa, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Arbor Hills Nursing Center | 3.4 mi | La Mesa, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Lemon Grove Care and Rehabilitation Center | 3.5 mi | Lemon Grove, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Country Manor la Mesa Healthcare Center | 3.8 mi | La Mesa, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Grossmont Gardens Healthcare Center | 4.1 mi | La Mesa, CA | —/5 | ||
| Amaya Springs Health Care Center | 4.1 mi | Spring Valley, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 4/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in San Diego, CA — 83 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Valley Vista Post Acute — Escondido, CA · overall 4/5
- Veterans Home of California - Chula Vista — Chula Vista, CA · overall 5/5
- VI at la Jolla Village — San Diego, CA · overall 5/5
- Victoria Post Acute Care — El Cajon, CA · overall 5/5
- Villa Coronado D/P SNF — Coronado, CA · overall 5/5
- Villa Las Palmas Healthcare Center — El Cajon, CA · overall 3/5
- Villa Rancho Bernardo Care Center — San Diego, CA · overall 5/5
- Village Square Healthcare Center — San Marcos, CA · overall 4/5
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 055328.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).