1515 Shasta Drive, Davis, CA 95616 (opens Google Maps) · Yolo County · (530) 747-7000· 37 certified beds · avg 35 residents/day · certified since Apr 16, 2001 · Medicare only — not Medicaid certified
Certified for Medicare only. Medicare pays for short rehabilitation stays, not for long-term care — and this facility cannot bill Medicaid, which is what most families rely on for a long stay. Ask what a long-term stay here would cost and how it would be paid for. Who pays for nursing home care →
Part of chain: PACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES (10 facilities, chain avg rating 4.6★)
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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Oct 25, 2024 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint
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): 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: Dec 5, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 18 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
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 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
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 19, 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 |
| Sep 19, 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 |
| Sep 19, 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 |
| Sep 19, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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. · F-0919 |
| Sep 19, 2025 | 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 |
| Sep 19, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. · F-0578 |
| Sep 19, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692 |
| Mar 20, 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 |
| Oct 25, 2024 | ▲ G · Actual 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 14, 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 14, 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 14, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 14, 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 14, 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. · F-0656 |
| Jun 14, 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 |
| Dec 9, 2022 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Dec 9, 2022 | 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 |
| Dec 9, 2022 | 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 |
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (6 → 7).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 3 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 7 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2025 | 8 | 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.
How to file a complaint about care →
0 fines totaling $0, plus 1 Medicare payment denial period.
Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Oct 25, 2024 | Payment Denial | 14 days from Nov 21, 2024 |
What these staffing numbers mean →
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) | 4.99 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 15% in California; top 13% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 1.78 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 2% in California; top 3% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.40 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 17% in California; top 14% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 1.40 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 4% in California; top 2% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 37.8 | 36.7 | 45.8 | bottom 45% in California; top 31% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 52.9 | 38.1 | 42.9 | bottom 22% in California; bottom 31% 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 4.83, RN 1.73, weekend 4.27.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.83 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 5/5.
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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 2/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for University Retirement Community at Davis. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
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.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
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 →
Non profit - Other
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bank of America, N.a. | Organization | 5% or Greater Mortgage Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2013 |
| Bank of America, N.a. | Organization | 5% or Greater Security Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2013 |
| Castillo, Alika | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2010 |
| Cross, Lois | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/27/2017 |
| Heard, David | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/27/2017 |
| Kerr, Robert | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/27/2017 |
| Lindsay, Dennis | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/27/2017 |
| Pacific Retirement Services INC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/1998 |
| Peralta, Gretchen | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/27/2017 |
| Schrader, Wayne | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/27/2017 |
| Sholty, Eric | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/27/2018 |
All 11 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
CMS lists this facility under the chain Pacific Retirement Services — 10 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.
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 9 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Courtyard Health Care Center | 2.2 mi | Davis, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Woodland Post-Acute | 7.7 mi | Woodland, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Cottonwood Healthcare Center | 7.8 mi | Woodland, CA | ★★★★★ | 3/5 | |
| The Grove Post-Acute | 8.3 mi | Woodland, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| River Bend Nursing Center | 12.5 mi | West Sacramento, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Greenhaven Healthcare Center | 13.0 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Cedarwood Post Acute | 13.7 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Acc Care Center | 14.0 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★★★★ | 3/5 | |
| Pioneer House | 14.6 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Capital Post Acute | 16.2 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Mid-Town Oaks Post-Acute | 16.2 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Double Tree Post Acute Care Center | 16.4 mi | Sacramento, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555769.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details