CaliforniaPlacerville

Western Slope Health Center

3280 Washington Street, Placerville, CA 95667 · El Dorado County · 99 certified beds · avg 93 residents/day · certified since Jul 1, 1973

Part of chain: PACS GROUP (274 facilities, chain avg rating 2.9★)

4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
1
Serious findings on record
$8,412
Fines, last 3 years
4.05
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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

Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · 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)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Sep 18, 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 30, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (31)

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
Jun 17, 2026D · 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. · from a complaint
Mar 6, 2026F · 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.
Mar 6, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility gave residents unnecessary mind-altering (psychotropic) medications, or used drugs in a way that restrained residents by dulling their ability to think, move, or function.
Mar 6, 2026E · 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.
Mar 6, 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.
Mar 6, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own.
Aug 5, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · from a complaint
Dec 5, 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.
Dec 5, 2024D · 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.
Dec 5, 2024D · 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.
Dec 5, 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.
Sep 23, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care. · from a complaint
Jul 23, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. · from a complaint
Jul 23, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests. · from a complaint
Nov 17, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service.
Nov 17, 2023F · 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.
Nov 17, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
Nov 17, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Nov 17, 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.
Nov 17, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Nov 17, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service.
Nov 17, 2023E · 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.
Nov 17, 2023E · 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.
Nov 17, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential.
Nov 17, 2023D · 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.
Nov 17, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration.
Nov 17, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide or arrange dental services for its residents. Nursing homes are responsible for making sure residents can get dental care.
Nov 17, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide special eating equipment and utensils — like adaptive cups or easy-grip silverware — for residents who need them, along with appropriate help at meals.
Sep 18, 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
Aug 30, 2023D · 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. · from a complaint
Aug 17, 2023D · 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

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (4 → 5).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2023171G ▲
202470E
202510D
202660F

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 $8,412.

DateTypeAmount / length
Sep 18, 2023Fine$8,412

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)4.054.313.95bottom 45% in California; top 38% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.340.610.69bottom 19% in California; bottom 14% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.653.903.50bottom 43% in California; top 35% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.270.510.48bottom 28% in California; bottom 27% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)53.836.745.8bottom 8% in California; bottom 28% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)55.638.142.9bottom 20% in California; bottom 28% 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 3.95, RN 0.33, weekend 3.56. Staffing rating: 2/5.

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 - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Bay Bridge Capital Partners, LLCOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest100%11/05/2021
Hudson River Opco LLCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%11/05/2021
Apt, FrederickIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Hampton, DevinIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE01/03/2024
Jergensen, JoshuaIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Mitchell, JohnIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2024
Nguyen, Thanh Trang ThiIndividualContracted Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2023

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
The Pines at Placerville Healthcare Center0.2 miPlacerville, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Gold Country Health Center2.4 miPlacerville, CA★★★★☆3/5
Rock Creek Care Center19.4 miAuburn, CA★★★★★4/5
Auburn Ravine Healthcare Center20.0 miAuburn, CA★★★★★4/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Placerville →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 056243.