How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Webster House
437 Webster Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (opens Google Maps) · Santa Clara County · (650) 328-3300· 145 certified beds · avg 64 residents/day · certified since Jun 8, 1983 · 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: FRONT PORCH (9 facilities, chain avg rating 4.8★)
5/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Jan 30, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
5.52
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: ★★★★★5/5 · 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.
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 23 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint F-0684
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
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
View all 23 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 9, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint · F-0684 |
| Jan 30, 2025 | 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 30, 2025 | 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 |
| Feb 27, 2023 | 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 |
| Feb 27, 2023 | 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 |
| Feb 27, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Feb 27, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804 |
| Feb 27, 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 |
| Feb 27, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0637 |
| Feb 27, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684 |
| Feb 27, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · F-0686 |
| Feb 27, 2023 | 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. · F-0689 |
| Feb 27, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0693 |
| Feb 27, 2023 | 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 |
| Feb 27, 2023 | 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 |
| Feb 27, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · F-0760 |
| Feb 27, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records. · F-0851 |
| Feb 27, 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 |
| Nov 15, 2019 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804 |
| Nov 15, 2019 | 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 |
| Nov 15, 2019 | 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 |
| Nov 15, 2019 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide routine dental care and 24-hour emergency dental care for residents. · F-0790 |
| Nov 15, 2019 | 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 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (15 → 2).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2019
All citations: 5
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 15
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 1
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 5 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 15 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 2 | 0 | D |
| 2026 | 1 | 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: 5.52
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 1.16
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 4.14
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) | 5.52 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 8% in California; top 7% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 1.16 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 7% in California; top 10% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.14 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 26% in California; top 19% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.76 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 13% in California; top 13% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 20.6 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 8% in California; top 3% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 36.4 | 38.1 | 42.9 | top 49% in California; top 40% 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 5.05, RN 1.06, weekend 3.79.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (5.05 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 Webster House. 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 →
Non profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Front Porch Communities and Services | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 04/01/2022 |
| Akopyan, Gevork | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/12/2022 |
| Dunn, Michael | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/01/2026 |
| Dunn, Michael | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/07/2026 |
| Duranteau, Nancy | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2021 |
| Forte, Vincent | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2021 |
| Frederick, Melissa | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/30/2017 |
| Frederick, Melissa | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/30/2017 |
| Front Porch Communities and Services | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2022 |
| Handy, Joanne | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2021 |
| Ichien, Christopher | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/04/2018 |
| Jacobs, Laura | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2019 |
| Jordan, Maria | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/19/2024 |
| Kelly, Sean | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/06/2023 |
| Kelly, Sean | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/06/2023 |
| Kroeker, Kevin | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2018 |
| Macango, Susan | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/04/2026 |
| McGovern, Marion | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2017 |
| McMullin, Mary | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2025 |
| Merkin, Nickolas | Individual | Individual Is an Owner, Partner or Trustee of Any ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/12/2025 |
Showing 20 of 30 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 10 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 Front Porch — 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.
- Canterbury Woods — Pacific Grove, CA · overall 5/5
- Carlsbad by the Sea — Carlsbad, CA · overall 5/5
- Claremont Manor Care Center — Claremont, CA · overall 3/5
- San Francisco Towers — San Francisco, CA · overall 5/5
- Spring Lake Village — Santa Rosa, CA · overall 5/5
- St Paul's Towers — Oakland, CA · overall 5/5
- Sunny View Manor — Cupertino, CA · overall 5/5
- Villa Gardens Health Care Unit — Pasadena, 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.
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
- "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 is your current medication error rate, and what have you changed to bring errors down?"
- "Could I join residents for a meal to see the food quality and temperature for myself?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "If my family member's health suddenly changes, how quickly do you reassess them and update their care?"
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 21% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 30 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Palo Alto Post-Acute | 0.5 mi | Palo Alto, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| VI at Palo Alto | 1.3 mi | Palo Alto, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Atherton Park Post-Acute | 1.6 mi | Menlo Park, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| The Terraces at Los Altos Health Facility | 4.6 mi | Los Altos, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Devonshire Oaks Nursing Center | 5.0 mi | Redwood City, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| The Sequoias | 6.1 mi | Portola Valley, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Villa Siena | 6.5 mi | Mountain View, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Camino Ridge Post-Acute | 6.9 mi | Mountain View, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Mountain View Healthcare Center | 7.2 mi | Mountain View, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Los Altos Post-Acute | 7.5 mi | Los Altos, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Belmont Healthcare Center | 8.2 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.
- 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
- Baywood Post Acute — Campbell, CA · overall 3/5
- Camden Postacute Care, INC — Campbell, 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 555156.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).