3400 Knighton Road, Redding, CA 96002 (opens Google Maps) · Shasta County · (530) 224-3300· 60 certified beds · avg 40 residents/day · certified since Apr 29, 2015 · 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 →
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 · Aug 20, 2025 · 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: Sep 12, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 21 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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 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. F-0677
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
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 23, 2026 | 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 |
| Apr 23, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0677 |
| Apr 23, 2026 | 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 |
| Apr 23, 2026 | 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 20, 2025 | ▲ 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 |
| Aug 20, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · from a complaint · F-0697 |
| Apr 10, 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 |
| Apr 10, 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 |
| Apr 10, 2025 | 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 |
| Apr 10, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Apr 10, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. · F-0801 |
| Apr 10, 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 |
| Sep 18, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · from a complaint · F-0583 |
| Apr 25, 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 |
| Apr 25, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. · F-0814 |
| Apr 25, 2024 | 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 |
| Apr 25, 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 |
| Apr 25, 2024 | 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 |
| Jan 3, 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 |
| Sep 28, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · from a complaint · F-0610 |
| Sep 8, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (6 → 4).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 2 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 7 | 0 | F |
| 2025 | 8 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2026 | 4 | 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 →
1 fine totaling $8,278.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Aug 20, 2025 | Fine | $8,278 |
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) | 8.72 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 1% in California; top 1% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 3.43 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 1% in California; top 1% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 7.37 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 1% in California; top 1% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 1.57 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 4% in California; top 2% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 38.9 | 36.7 | 45.8 | bottom 41% in California; top 34% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 28.6 | 38.1 | 42.9 | top 33% in California; top 26% 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 5.92, RN 2.33, weekend 5.00.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (5.92 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: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: —/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Veterans Home of California - Redding. 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 →
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% | 10/22/2013 |
| Department of Veterans Affairs of the State of California | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/22/2013 |
| Department of Veterans Affairs of the State of California | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/22/2013 |
| Koppes, Jessica | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/23/2025 |
| Koppes, Jessica | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/23/2025 |
| Kreisher, Timothy | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/22/2024 |
| Kreisher, Timothy | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/22/2024 |
| Vogus, James | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/01/2012 |
| Vogus, James | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/01/2012 |
All 9 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marquis Care at Shasta | 3.5 mi | Redding, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Crestwood Wellness and Recovery Center | 4.0 mi | Redding, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Copper Ridge Care Center | 4.4 mi | Redding, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Oak River Rehab | 4.5 mi | Anderson, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| River Valley Healthcare & Wellness Centre, LP | 5.1 mi | Redding, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Redding Post Acute | 5.5 mi | Redding, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Vibra Hospital of Northern California D/P SNF | 6.4 mi | Redding, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Quartz Hill Post Acute | 6.8 mi | Redding, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
CMS records place this facility in Shasta, CA — 10 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
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 555891.
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details