Victoria Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center

Name: Victoria Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center
Address: 340 VICTORIA STREET, Costa Mesa, CA, 92627, US
Telephone: 9496420387

340 Victoria Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 · Orange County · 79 certified beds · avg 79 residents/day · certified since Dec 31, 1971

Part of chain: THE ENSIGN GROUP (342 facilities, chain avg rating 3.2★)

5/5

Health inspection rating (on-site)

Serious findings on record

Fines, last 3 years

3.48

Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★★★★★5/5 · CMS overall rating: 5/5

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 self-reported quality measures.

All citations in the current public record (27)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

Date	Severity	What the facility was cited for
Sep 4, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · from a complaint
Jul 23, 2025	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Jul 23, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Jul 23, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Jul 23, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it.
Jul 23, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail.
Jul 23, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.
Jul 23, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Jul 23, 2025	B · Minimal risk, repeated	The facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate.
Jul 23, 2025	B · Minimal risk, repeated	The facility did not enter each resident's assessment information into the required format and send it to the state within 7 days of completing the assessment, as the rules require.
Jul 23, 2025	B · Minimal risk, repeated	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.
Jul 23, 2025	B · Minimal risk, repeated	The facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
Apr 29, 2024	B · Minimal risk, repeated	The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint
Oct 31, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate.
Oct 31, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not properly complete the required screening (called PASARR) that identifies whether a person entering a nursing home has a mental illness or intellectual disability and needs specialized services.
Oct 23, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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. · from a complaint
Jul 9, 2021	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Jul 9, 2021	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential.
Jul 9, 2021	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility used feeding tubes without a valid medical reason or the resident's agreement, or did not provide proper care to residents who have feeding tubes.
Jul 9, 2021	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.
Jul 9, 2021	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Jul 9, 2021	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Jul 9, 2021	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Jul 9, 2021	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Jul 9, 2021	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Jul 9, 2021	B · Minimal risk, repeated	The facility did not reassess a resident after a significant change in their condition, such as a sudden decline in health. A full new assessment is required when a resident's condition changes in a major way.
Jul 9, 2021	B · Minimal risk, repeated	The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (2 → 11).

Year	Citations	Worst severity that year
2021	11	D
2023	3	D
2024	1	B
2025	12	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)

No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

Measure	This facility	California avg	U.S. avg	Where it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)	3.48	4.31	3.95	bottom 9% in California; bottom 36% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours	0.37	0.61	0.69	bottom 25% in California; bottom 18% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing	3.19	3.90	3.50	bottom 10% in California; bottom 41% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)	0.31	0.51	0.48	bottom 37% in California; bottom 34% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)	17.9	36.7	45.8	top 5% in California; top 2% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)	22.2	38.1	42.9	top 23% in California; top 17% in the U.S.

Hours are per resident per day, 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 4.22, RN 0.45, weekend 3.86. Staffing rating: 3/5.

Self-reported quality measures

Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.

Quality measures rating: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Corporation

Owner / manager	Type	Role	Stake	Since
Flagstone Healthcare South LLC	Organization	Direct Ownership Interest	NOT APPLICABLE	01/30/2006
The Ensign Group INC	Organization	Indirect Ownership Interest	NOT APPLICABLE	01/30/2006
Bashandy, Hany	Individual	Managing Control - Governing Body	NOT APPLICABLE	10/30/2019
Bashandy, Hany	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	10/30/2019
Bashandy, Hany	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	10/30/2019
Burnam, Soon	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	01/30/2006
Ensign Services INC	Organization	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	07/01/2003
Keetch, Chad	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	03/01/2011
Margaret L Woods Trust	Organization	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	07/01/2003
Port, Barry	Individual	Individual Is an Owner, Partner or Trustee of Any ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	04/13/2026
Wahl Investments, LLC	Organization	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	07/01/2003
Wahl Properties, LLC	Organization	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	07/01/2003
Willits, Adam	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2019
Yuhas, Michael	Individual	Managing Control - Governing Body	NOT APPLICABLE	07/13/2016
Yuhas, Michael	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	07/13/2016
Yuhas, Michael	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	07/13/2016

Questions to ask on your visit

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

"How does your pharmacist review residents' medications, and how quickly can you fill new or urgent prescriptions?"
"What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
"How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
"How do you care for residents with incontinence or catheters, and what do you do to prevent urinary tract infections?"
"How do you assess and manage residents' pain, especially for those who have trouble communicating?"
"How do you coordinate and monitor care for residents who receive dialysis?"
"Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
"If my family member is able to manage their own medications, would you allow it, and how is that decided?"
"What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
"Can I see the results and plan of correction from your most recent state inspection?"

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

Facility	Distance	City	Overall	Inspection	Flags
Newport Subacute Healthcare Center	0.8 mi	Costa Mesa, CA	★☆☆☆☆	1/5
Mesa Verde Post Acute Care Center	1.4 mi	Costa Mesa, CA	★★★★☆	3/5
Newport Nursing and Rehabilitation Center	1.9 mi	Newport Beach, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5	abuse
Pelican Ridge Post Acute	2.0 mi	Newport Beach, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5	abuse
Crystal Cove Care Center	2.1 mi	Newport Beach, CA	★★★★☆	3/5
South Coast Global Medical Center D/P SNF	4.2 mi	Santa Ana, CA	★★★☆☆	3/5
Plaza Healthcare Center	4.3 mi	Santa Ana, CA	★☆☆☆☆	1/5	abuse
Fountain Valley Post Acute	4.5 mi	Fountain Valley, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5
Regents Point - Windcrest	4.6 mi	Irvine, CA	★★★★☆	3/5
South Coast Post Acute	4.7 mi	Santa Ana, CA	★★☆☆☆	2/5	abuse
Beachside Nursing Center	5.2 mi	Huntington Beach, CA	★★★★☆	3/5
Sea Cliff Healthcare Center	5.2 mi	Huntington Beach, CA	★★☆☆☆	2/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Costa Mesa →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 055237.

The Care File

Visit checklist — Victoria Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center

340 Victoria Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 · 9496420387

Health inspection rating 5/5 · CMS overall 5/5· Fines (3y): $0

Questions for the administrator:

☐ "How does your pharmacist review residents' medications, and how quickly can you fill new or urgent prescriptions?"
☐ "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
☐ "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
☐ "How do you care for residents with incontinence or catheters, and what do you do to prevent urinary tract infections?"
☐ "How do you assess and manage residents' pain, especially for those who have trouble communicating?"
☐ "How do you coordinate and monitor care for residents who receive dialysis?"
☐ "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
☐ "If my family member is able to manage their own medications, would you allow it, and how is that decided?"
☐ "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
☐ "Can I see the results and plan of correction from your most recent state inspection?"

While you're there, notice:

☐ Smell and cleanliness in hallways, not just the lobby
☐ How staff speak to residents; call lights answered promptly
☐ Residents up, dressed, and engaged (visit mealtimes and a weekend if you can)

Data: CMS Provider Data Catalog, version 2026-08-01 · CCN 055237 · Verify at medicare.gov/care-compare · Printed from The Care File (thecarefile.com)