How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
VI at Palo Alto
600 Sand Hill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304 (opens Google Maps) · Santa Clara County · (650) 853-5001· 44 certified beds · avg 36 residents/day · certified since Sep 7, 2006 · 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: VI LIVING (9 facilities, chain avg rating 4.4★)
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jan 26, 2026
1
Serious findings on record
most recent Mar 22, 2024
$0
Fines, last 3 years
5.53
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.
Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Mar 22, 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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Mar 22, 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: Apr 18, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 19 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service. F-0802
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
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
View all 19 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jan 26, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service. · F-0802 |
| Jan 26, 2026 | 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 |
| Jan 26, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 26, 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 |
| Jan 26, 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 23, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility used bed rails without first trying safer alternatives, or without assessing the resident's safety risk, discussing the risks and benefits with the resident or family, getting consent, and installing the rails correctly. · F-0700 |
| Aug 23, 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 |
| Aug 23, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · F-0583 |
| Aug 23, 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 |
| Aug 23, 2024 | 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 |
| Aug 23, 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 |
| Mar 22, 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 |
| Feb 15, 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 |
| Aug 15, 2023 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0655 |
| Mar 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 |
| Mar 17, 2023 | 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 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 |
| Mar 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 |
| Mar 17, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have a working program to monitor how antibiotics are used. Tracking antibiotic use helps make sure these drugs are given only when needed and remain effective. · F-0881 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (6 → 5).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 6
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 8
Serious citations (G–L): 1
2026
All citations: 5
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 | 6 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 8 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2026 | 5 | 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: 5.53
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 1.53
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 4.95
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) | 5.53 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 7% in California; top 7% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 1.53 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 4% in California; top 4% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.95 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 7% in California; top 7% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 1.25 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 5% in California; top 3% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 20.3 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 8% in California; top 3% 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 6.10, RN 1.69, weekend 5.46.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (6.10 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 VI at Palo Alto. 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 - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Margot and Tom Pritzker Foundation | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 10% | 05/22/2025 |
| P. G. - Daniel Trust | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 5% | 01/01/2012 |
| P. G. - Don #3 Trust | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 5% | 01/01/2012 |
| P. G. - Jim Trust | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 5% | 01/01/2012 |
| P. G. - Johnny Trust | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 5% | 01/01/2012 |
| P. G. - Karen Trust | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 9% | 01/01/2012 |
| P. G. - Linda Trust | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 5% | 01/01/2012 |
| P. G. - Nicholas Trust | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 6% | 01/01/2012 |
| P. G. - Tony Trust | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 5% | 01/01/2012 |
| Pritzker Pucker Family Foundation No. 2 | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 9% | 05/22/2025 |
| Alves, Valerie | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/10/2022 |
| Alves, Valerie | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/10/2022 |
| Boyle, Neal | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 02/14/2020 |
| Classic Residence Management Limited Partnership | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2000 |
| Classic Residence Management Limited Partnership | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/11/2025 |
| Cope, Tara | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2018 |
| Evraets, Melissa | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/31/2020 |
| Evraets, Melissa | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/31/2020 |
| Fadem, Andrea | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/23/2021 |
| Fadem, Andrea | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/23/2021 |
Showing 20 of 37 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 17 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 VI Living — 9 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.
- VI at Highlands Ranch Skilled Nursing — Highlands Ranch, CO · overall 5/5
- Bentley Care Center — Naples, FL · overall 3/5
- VI at Aventura — Aventura, FL · overall 5/5
- VI at the Glen — Glenview, IL · overall 5/5
- Broad Creek Care Center — Hilton Head Island, SC · overall 5/5
- VI at Grayhawk, a VI and Plaza Companies Community — Scottsdale, AZ · overall 5/5
- VI at Silverstone, a VI and Plaza Companies Commun — Scottsdale, AZ · overall 2/5
- VI at la Jolla Village — San Diego, CA · overall 5/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "How is your kitchen staffed, and have meals ever been delayed because of staffing?"
- "Who is on the team that builds each resident's care plan, and how quickly is it in place after admission?"
- "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 alternatives do you try before using bed rails, and how do you involve families in that decision?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
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 20% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 37 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 89 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atherton Park Post-Acute | 1.0 mi | Menlo Park, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Palo Alto Post-Acute | 1.1 mi | Palo Alto, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Webster House | 1.3 mi | Palo Alto, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Devonshire Oaks Nursing Center | 4.2 mi | Redwood City, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| The Terraces at Los Altos Health Facility | 4.7 mi | Los Altos, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| The Sequoias | 5.0 mi | Portola Valley, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Villa Siena | 6.8 mi | Mountain View, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Camino Ridge Post-Acute | 7.2 mi | Mountain View, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Mountain View Healthcare Center | 7.4 mi | Mountain View, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Los Altos Post-Acute | 7.6 mi | Los Altos, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Belmont Healthcare Center | 7.7 mi | Belmont, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Health Care Ctr at the Forum at Rancho San Antonio | 8.6 mi | Cupertino, CA | ★★★★☆ | 2/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Santa Clara, CA — 50 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Vista Manor Nursing Center — San Jose, CA · overall 5/5
- Westwood Post Acute — San Jose, CA · overall 2/5
- White Blossom Care Center — San Jose, CA · overall 2/5
- Woodlands Healthcare Center — Los Gatos, CA · overall 5/5
- A Grace Sub Acute & Skilled Care — San Jose, CA · overall 4/5
- Almaden Health and Rehabilitation Center — San Jose, 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 555835.