How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Veterans Home of California - Fresno
2811 W Cesar Chavez Blvd, Fresno, CA 93706 (opens Google Maps) · Fresno County · (559) 493-4400· 120 certified beds · avg 108 residents/day · certified since Sep 22, 2016 · 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 →
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jan 30, 2026
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
7.31
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 29 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 provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint F-0684
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
View all 29 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Apr 9, 2026 | 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 |
| Apr 9, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint · F-0684 |
| Jan 30, 2026 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 30, 2026 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Jan 30, 2026 | 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 30, 2026 | 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 |
| Jan 30, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide required paperwork or notices about a resident's needs, their right to appeal a transfer or discharge, or the facility's bed-hold policy (how long a bed is saved during a hospital stay). · F-0628 |
| Jan 30, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. · F-0690 |
| Jan 30, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have a written plan describing how it runs its quality improvement program — the ongoing process of finding problems in care and fixing them. · F-0865 |
| Jul 1, 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 |
| Mar 26, 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 |
| Feb 27, 2025 | 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 |
| Feb 27, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Feb 27, 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 |
| Feb 27, 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 |
| Feb 27, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' individual preferences, choices, values, and beliefs in their daily life and care. · F-0675 |
| Feb 27, 2025 | 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 27, 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 |
| Aug 21, 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 |
| Mar 21, 2024 | 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 |
| Mar 21, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Mar 21, 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 |
| Mar 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. · F-0550 |
| Mar 21, 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 |
| Mar 21, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline. · F-0688 |
| Mar 21, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · F-0697 |
| Mar 21, 2024 | 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 |
| Mar 21, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. · F-0908 |
| Sep 1, 2023 | 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 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (7 → 7).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 10
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 9
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 1 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 10 | 0 | F |
| 2025 | 9 | 0 | F |
| 2026 | 9 | 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: 7.31
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 1.85
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 6.46
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) | 7.31 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 2% in California; top 1% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 1.85 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 2% in California; top 2% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 6.46 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 2% in California; top 1% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.96 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 8% in California; top 7% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 28.3 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 25% in California; top 11% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 18.8 | 38.1 | 42.9 | top 18% in California; top 12% 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 6.03, RN 1.52, weekend 5.33.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (6.03 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
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Veterans Home of California - Fresno. 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 →
Government - State
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Department of Veterans Affairs of the State of California | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 10/13/2013 |
| Department of Veterans Affairs of the State of California | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/13/2013 |
| Department of Veterans Affairs of the State of California | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/13/2013 |
| Kreisher, Timothy | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/22/2024 |
| Kreisher, Timothy | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/22/2024 |
| Sidhu, Asha Pritpal | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/20/2014 |
| Sidhu, Asha Pritpal | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/20/2014 |
| Vigil, Caroline | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/16/2019 |
| Vigil, Caroline | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/16/2019 |
All 9 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
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?"
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "How does your pharmacist review residents' medications, and how quickly can you fill new or urgent prescriptions?"
- "Does a pharmacist review every resident's medications and chart monthly, and how are their concerns acted on?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "What written notices do we get before any transfer or discharge, and what is your bed-hold policy?"
- "How do you care for residents with incontinence or catheters, and what do you do to prevent urinary tract infections?"
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 28% 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 26 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fresno Postacute Care | 2.9 mi | Fresno, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Foundation Skilled Nursing | 3.9 mi | Fresno, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Healthcare Centre of Fresno | 3.9 mi | Fresno, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Sierra Vista Healthcare | 5.2 mi | Fresno, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Community Subacute and Transitional Care Center | 6.2 mi | Fresno, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Stonehaven Senior Living | 6.3 mi | Fresno, CA | —/5 | ||
| Oakwood Gardens Care Center | 6.6 mi | Fresno, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Covenant Post Acute | 6.6 mi | Fresno, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Grace Healthcare Center | 6.7 mi | Fresno, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Orchard Post Acute | 6.7 mi | Fresno, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Keystone Post-Acute | 6.8 mi | Fresno, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Pacific Gardens Nursing and Rehabilitation Center | 7.1 mi | Fresno, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Fresno, CA — 31 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Vineyard Care Center — Reedley, CA · overall 4/5
- Vineyards at Fowler — Fowler, CA · overall 2/5
- Willow Creek Healthcare Center — Clovis, CA · overall 3/5
- Bethel Lutheran Home — Selma, CA · overall 3/5
- California Home for the Aged — Fresno, CA · overall 5/5
- Coalinga Regional Medical Ctr DP/SNF — Coalinga, CA · overall 1/5abuse
- Cornerstone Care Center — Sanger, CA · overall 2/5
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 555900.