How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
University Post-Acute Rehab
2120 Stockton Boulevard, Sacramento, CA 95817 (opens Google Maps) · Sacramento County · (916) 452-6631· 59 certified beds · avg 55 residents/day · certified since Jun 10, 1987 · 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: ASPEN SKILLED HEALTHCARE (35 facilities, chain avg rating 3.7★)
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected May 22, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.23
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 26 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
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
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
View all 26 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 |
|---|---|---|
| May 22, 2025 | 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 |
| May 22, 2025 | 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 |
| May 22, 2025 | 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 22, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| May 22, 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 22, 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 22, 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 22, 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. · F-0755 |
| Mar 11, 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 |
| Jun 6, 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 6, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly. · F-0585 |
| Jun 6, 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. · F-0658 |
| Jun 6, 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 |
| Jun 6, 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. · F-0880 |
| Jun 1, 2024 | 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 |
| Feb 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. · from a complaint · F-0550 |
| Nov 28, 2023 | 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, 2022 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 13, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not fully assess residents on time — a complete assessment of health, abilities, and needs is required when a resident is first admitted and at least once every 12 months after that. · F-0636 |
| Jan 13, 2022 | 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 |
| Jan 13, 2022 | 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 |
| Jan 13, 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 |
| Jan 13, 2022 | 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 |
| Jan 13, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not update each resident's care assessment at least once every 3 months. These regular check-ins keep the resident's care plan matched to their current condition. · F-0638 |
| Jan 13, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable. · F-0655 |
| Jan 13, 2022 | 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 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (5 → 8).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2022
All citations: 9
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 7
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 9
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 | 9 | 0 | F |
| 2023 | 1 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 7 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 9 | 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: 4.23
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 1.20
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.92
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) | 4.23 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 43% in California; top 31% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 1.20 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 7% in California; top 9% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.92 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 38% in California; top 25% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 1.11 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 7% in California; top 4% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 31.9 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 37% in California; top 18% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 33.3 | 38.1 | 42.9 | top 40% in California; top 33% 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 4.55, RN 1.29, weekend 4.22.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.55 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 5/5.
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 Post-Acute Rehab. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Assb, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 01/12/2024 |
| Bradshaw, Peter | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/12/2024 |
| Elsner, Eric | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/12/2024 |
| Kirkwood, Jared | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/12/2024 |
| Orgill, Craig | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/12/2024 |
| Parti, Rajesh | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/12/2024 |
| Parti, Shruty | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2023 |
| Paxman, Marcus | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/12/2024 |
| Aspen Healthcare Services LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/12/2024 |
| Assb, LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/12/2024 |
| Assb, LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/12/2024 |
| Batalla, Amel | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/12/2014 |
| Batalla, Amel | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/12/2014 |
| Bradshaw, Jeffrey | Individual | Individual Is an Owner, Partner or Trustee of Any ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/09/2026 |
| Bradshaw, Jeffrey | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/12/2024 |
| Brady, Vern | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/12/2024 |
| Case, Ryan | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/12/2024 |
| Jurado, Frank | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/12/2024 |
| Pantovich, Jeremy | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/12/2014 |
| Pantovich, Jeremy | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/12/2014 |
Showing 20 of 27 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 7 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 Aspen Skilled Healthcare — 35 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.
- Villa Valencia Healthcare Center — Laguna Hills, CA · overall 4/5
- Woodland Post-Acute — Woodland, CA · overall 2/5
- Woodlands Healthcare Center — Los Gatos, CA · overall 5/5
- The Rehabilitation Center at the Palazzo — Phoenix, AZ · overall 4/5
- Alta Healthcare Center of Camarillo — Camarillo, CA · overall 4/5
- Berkley East Healthcare Center — Santa Monica, CA · overall 2/5
- Berkley Post-Acute — Van Nuys, CA · overall 3/5
- Berkley West Healthcare Center — Santa Monica, CA · overall 3/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 34 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 show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "What is your current medication error rate, and what have you changed to bring errors down?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "How do you track each resident's food allergies and preferences, and what happens if they don't like what's served?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "How does your pharmacist review residents' medications, and how quickly can you fill new or urgent prescriptions?"
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 32% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 27 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 45 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Saylor Lane Healthcare Center | 0.6 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| McKinley Park Care Center | 1.0 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Mid-Town Oaks Post-Acute | 1.1 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Sherwood Healthcare Center | 1.8 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Pioneer House | 2.5 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Advanced Health Care of Sacramento | 2.8 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Asbury Park Nursing and Rehabilitation Center | 2.9 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Bridgewood Post Acute | 3.1 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Woodside Healthcare Center | 3.1 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Cedarwood Post Acute | 3.7 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Capital Post Acute | 4.0 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| River Bend Nursing Center | 4.5 mi | West Sacramento, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Sacramento, CA — 37 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Whitney Oaks Care Center — Carmichael, CA · overall 3/5
- Windsor Care Center of Sacramento — Sacramento, CA · overall 2/5
- Acc Care Center — Sacramento, CA · overall 5/5
- American River Center — Carmichael, CA · overall 4/5
- Arden Park Post Acute — Sacramento, CA · overall 3/5abuse
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 555265.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).