California ›Watsonville

Watsonville Nursing Center

535 Auto Center Drive, Watsonville, CA 95076 · Santa Cruz County · 87 certified beds · avg 81 residents/day · certified since May 1, 1978 · 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 →

Part of chain: CAMBRIDGE HEALTHCARE SERVICES (32 facilities, chain avg rating 2.5★)

3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
1
Serious findings on record
$44,488
Fines, last 3 years
4.49
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: 3/5

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)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Aug 22, 2023 · 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): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Sep 19, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (42)

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
Jan 9, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it.
Jan 9, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Jan 9, 2026E · 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.
Jan 9, 2026E · 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.
Jan 9, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Jan 9, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Jan 9, 2026D · 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.
Jan 9, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail.
Jan 9, 2026D · 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.
Jan 9, 2026B · 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.
Aug 19, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Aug 19, 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.
Aug 19, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Aug 19, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Aug 19, 2024E · 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.
Aug 19, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Aug 19, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand.
Aug 19, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Aug 19, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Aug 19, 2024D · 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.
Aug 19, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Aug 19, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide the social services residents need — such as counseling, help with adjustment, or connecting to outside resources — to achieve the best possible quality of life.
Aug 19, 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.
Aug 19, 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.
Aug 19, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service.
Aug 19, 2024D · 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.
Aug 19, 2024C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms.
Aug 22, 2023▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
May 6, 2022F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
May 6, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail.
May 6, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
May 6, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices.
May 6, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
May 6, 2022D · 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.
May 6, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide proper foot care for residents. Foot care includes routine care like nail trimming and attention to foot problems, which matter greatly for older adults.
May 6, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
May 6, 2022D · 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.
May 6, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
May 6, 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.
May 6, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not prepare and serve food in a form that meets each resident's individual needs — for example, chopped, pureed, or softened food for residents with chewing or swallowing problems.
May 6, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
May 6, 2022C · Minimal risk, facility-wideThe 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 (17 → 10).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2022140F
202311G ▲
2024170F
2026100E

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 $44,488.

DateTypeAmount / length
Aug 22, 2023Fine$44,488

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)4.494.313.95top 29% in California; top 23% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.450.610.69bottom 44% in California; bottom 29% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing4.243.903.50top 23% in California; top 17% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.290.510.48bottom 32% in California; bottom 30% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)27.136.745.8top 22% in California; top 10% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)50.038.142.9bottom 29% in California; bottom 39% 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 3.97, RN 0.39, weekend 3.75. 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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Bering Properties LLCOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest6%02/01/2007
BH AllianceOrganizationIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE11/01/2006
Crescent Facilities Operations LLCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%12/19/2006
Jenmax Enterprises LLCOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest23%02/01/2007
JK-CSH JV LLCOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest12%11/01/2006
Manhattan Five Partners LLCOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest7%11/01/2006
The Jacob Wintner TrustOrganizationIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE11/01/2006
The Wintner Living Trust Dated 7/08/1992OrganizationIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE02/01/2007
Win Win Enterprises, LLCOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest35%02/01/2007
Wintner, JacobIndividualIndirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE02/01/2007
535 Auto Center LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE12/15/2006
Bretsch, GregoryIndividualManaging Control - Governing BodyNOT APPLICABLE02/25/2019
Bretsch, GregoryIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE02/25/2019
Bretsch, GregoryIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/25/2019
Butenko, JulieIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE07/24/2023
Butenko, JulieIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE07/24/2023
Cambridge Healthcare Services LLCOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2014
Cambridge Healthcare Services LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE11/11/2025
Capela, HeidiIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE04/03/2023
Capela, HeidiIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE04/03/2023

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
Watsonville Post Acute Center0.0 miWatsonville, CA★★★★★4/5
Manresa Healthcare Center0.6 miWatsonville, CA★★★★☆4/5
Pacific Coast Manor11.2 miCapitola, CA★★★★★5/5
Driftwood Healthcare Center - Santa Cruz12.0 miSanta Cruz, CA★★★★☆3/5
Redwood Grove Post Acute12.5 miSanta Cruz, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Santa Cruz Post Acute12.8 miSanta Cruz, CA★★☆☆☆1/5
Gilroy Healthcare Center13.0 miGilroy, CA★★☆☆☆1/5
Morgan Hill Healthcare Center15.3 miMorgan Hill, CA★★★★☆3/5
Pacific Hills Post Acute15.4 miMorgan Hill, CA★★★★☆3/5
Coastal Post Acute16.7 miSalinas, CA★★★★☆3/5
Windsor the Ridge Rehabilitation Center16.7 miSalinas, CA★★★★★4/5
Katherine Healthcare18.9 miSalinas, CA★★☆☆☆2/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Watsonville →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 055240.