CaliforniaJurupa Valley

Vista Pacifica Convalescent Hospital

3662 Pacific Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509 · Riverside County · 49 certified beds · avg 49 residents/day · certified since Dec 31, 1971

3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
1
Serious findings on record
$52,611
Fines, last 3 years
5.66
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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

Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5

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.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, repeated · Feb 12, 2024 · F-0688

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.

Why it matters: Without this care, residents can develop stiff, contracted joints and lose the ability to move on their own.

Severity (K): A life-threatening or extremely dangerous situation affected several residents. Among the most serious findings an inspection can produce.

Corrected: Feb 12, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (29)

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

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Feb 27, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Feb 27, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Feb 27, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Feb 27, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have a registered nurse on duty at least 8 hours a day, or did not have a registered nurse serving full-time as director of nursing.
Feb 27, 2025B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms.
Feb 12, 2024▲ K · Immediate jeopardy, repeatedThe 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.
Feb 12, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Feb 12, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility admitted a resident without a doctor's order, or did not make sure each resident stayed under a doctor's ongoing care.
Feb 12, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have a registered nurse on duty at least 8 hours a day, or did not have a registered nurse serving full-time as director of nursing.
Feb 12, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.
Feb 12, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Feb 12, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Feb 12, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Feb 12, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Feb 12, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Feb 12, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep residents' medications free from unnecessary drugs. Residents should only take medicines they truly need, at the right dose, for a clear reason.
Feb 12, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Feb 12, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Feb 12, 2024B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms.
Oct 2, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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
Sep 14, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Feb 11, 2022F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
Feb 11, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives.
Feb 11, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Feb 11, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Feb 11, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Feb 11, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Feb 11, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Feb 11, 2022B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (14 → 5).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202280F
202320E
2024141K ▲
202550E

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)

1 fine totaling $52,611.

DateTypeAmount / length
Feb 12, 2024Fine$52,611

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

MeasureThis facilityCalifornia avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)5.664.313.95top 6% in California; top 6% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.350.610.69bottom 21% in California; bottom 15% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing5.033.903.50top 7% in California; top 6% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.270.510.48bottom 25% in California; bottom 25% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)32.836.745.8top 40% in California; top 19% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)0.038.142.9

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 4.55, RN 0.28, weekend 4.05. Staffing rating: 4/5.

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: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: —/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Cheryl Jumonville Legacy TrustOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest96%12/31/2013
Jumonville, CherylIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest12/31/2013
Jumonville, CherylIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE06/07/1989
Jumonville, CherylIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE06/07/1989
Jumonville, CherylIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE12/31/2015

Questions to ask on your visit

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

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Vista Pacifica Center0.0 miJurupa Valley, CA★★★★☆3/5
Jurupa Hills Post Acute0.5 miRiverside, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Riverside Behavioral Healthcare Center2.6 miRiverside, CA★★★★★4/5
Community Care on Palm2.7 miRiverside, CA★★★★☆3/5
The Grove Care and Wellness3.2 miRiverside, CA★★★★★4/5
Community Care and Rehabilitation Center3.3 miRiverside, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Riverside Heights Healthcare Center, LLC3.6 miRiverside, CA★★★★★5/5
Valencia Gardens Health Care Center4.0 miRiverside, CA★★★★★4/5
Riverside Postacute Care4.2 miRiverside, CA—/5abuseSFF
Woodcrest Post Acute & Rehabilitation4.9 miRiverside, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Extended Care Hospital of Riverside5.0 miRiverside, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Citrus Grove Post Acute5.0 miRiverside, CA★★★☆☆2/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Jurupa Valley →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 055361.