White Blossom Care Center
1990 Fruitdale Avenue, San Jose, CA 95128 · Santa Clara County · 153 certified beds · avg 151 residents/day · certified since May 1, 1977
Part of chain: PACS GROUP (274 facilities, chain avg rating 2.9★)
1/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
2
Serious findings on record
$97,052
Fines, last 3 years
3.14
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
Health inspection rating: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5
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 8, 2024 · 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 (K): A life-threatening or extremely dangerous situation affected several residents. Among the most serious findings an inspection can produce.
Corrected: Mar 1, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
▲ Actual harm, one-off · May 12, 2026 · F-0627 · triggered by a complaint
The facility did not make sure a transfer or discharge met the resident's needs and preferences, or did not properly prepare the resident to leave safely.
Why it matters: A rushed or poorly planned move can leave a resident somewhere that can't meet their needs.
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: Jun 6, 2026 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
All citations in the current public record (49)
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 |
|---|---|---|
| May 12, 2026 | ▲ G · Actual harm, one-off | The facility did not make sure a transfer or discharge met the resident's needs and preferences, or did not properly prepare the resident to leave safely. · from a complaint |
| May 12, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. · from a complaint |
| Mar 13, 2026 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. |
| Mar 13, 2026 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not have a policy covering how food brought in by family and visitors is used and stored safely. |
| Mar 13, 2026 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. |
| Mar 13, 2026 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. |
| Mar 13, 2026 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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. |
| Mar 13, 2026 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service. |
| Mar 13, 2026 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Mar 13, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Mar 13, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. |
| Mar 13, 2026 | 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. |
| Mar 13, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Mar 13, 2026 | 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. |
| Mar 13, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The 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. |
| Mar 13, 2026 | 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. |
| Mar 13, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives. |
| Mar 11, 2026 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint |
| Jun 10, 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. · from a complaint |
| May 15, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · from a complaint |
| Nov 21, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not coordinate resident assessments with the state's pre-admission screening program for mental illness and intellectual disabilities, or failed to refer residents for the special services they need. |
| Nov 21, 2024 | 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 11, 2024 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. · from a complaint |
| Aug 29, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. · from a complaint |
| Aug 29, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint |
| Aug 19, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint |
| Jun 25, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · from a complaint |
| Jun 25, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · from a complaint |
| Jun 12, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. · from a complaint |
| Jun 7, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · from a complaint |
| Feb 8, 2024 | ▲ K · Immediate jeopardy, repeated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint |
| Jan 2, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint |
| Dec 5, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not honor residents' right to share a room with their spouse or a roommate of their choosing, or moved residents to a different room without written notice beforehand. · from a complaint |
| Feb 15, 2022 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. |
| Feb 15, 2022 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The 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. |
| Feb 15, 2022 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. |
| Feb 15, 2022 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Feb 15, 2022 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Feb 15, 2022 | 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. |
| Feb 15, 2022 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Feb 15, 2022 | 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. |
| Feb 15, 2022 | 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. |
| Feb 15, 2022 | 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. |
| Feb 15, 2022 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. |
| Feb 15, 2022 | 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. |
| Feb 15, 2022 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Feb 15, 2022 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Feb 15, 2022 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. |
| Feb 15, 2022 | 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. |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (2 → 15).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 16 | 0 | E |
| 2023 | 1 | 0 | D |
| 2024 | 12 | 1 | K ▲ |
| 2025 | 2 | 0 | D |
| 2026 | 18 | 1 | G ▲ |
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)
2 fines totaling $97,052.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| May 12, 2026 | Fine | $23,625 |
| Feb 8, 2024 | Fine | $73,427 |
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) | 3.14 | 4.31 | 3.95 | bottom 2% in California; bottom 19% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.42 | 0.61 | 0.69 | bottom 38% in California; bottom 25% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 2.81 | 3.90 | 3.50 | bottom 1% in California; bottom 21% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.42 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 43% in California; top 45% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 54.3 | 36.7 | 45.8 | bottom 8% in California; bottom 26% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 61.5 | 38.1 | 42.9 | bottom 14% in California; bottom 20% 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 4.03, RN 0.54, weekend 3.60. Staffing rating: 1/5.
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: 5/5
Who owns this facility
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bay Bridge Capital Partners, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 100% | 08/15/2014 |
| Hudson River Opco LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 10/01/2019 |
| Apt, Frederick | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Awerbuck, Matthew | Individual | Contracted Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/01/2022 |
| Jergensen, Joshua | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Mitchell, John | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Pierce, Robert | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2023 |
| Pierce, Robert | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2023 |
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "Before a resident is discharged or transferred, how do you make sure the new place can actually meet their needs?"
- "Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "What are your rules for bringing in my family member's favorite foods, and how are they stored?"
- "Can we tour the whole building today, including resident bathrooms and common areas, not just the lobby?"
- "How do you coordinate and monitor care for residents who receive dialysis?"
- "What is your nurse and aide staffing ratio on each shift, including nights and weekends?"
- "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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Empress Care Center, LLC | 0.6 mi | San Jose, CA | ★★★★☆ | 2/5 | |
| A Grace Sub Acute & Skilled Care | 1.2 mi | San Jose, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| The Redwoods Post-Acute | 1.3 mi | San Jose, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Skyline Healthcare Center - San Jose | 1.3 mi | San Jose, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| O'Connor Hospital D/P SNF | 1.3 mi | San Jose, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Creekside Post-Acute | 1.8 mi | San Jose, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| The Win Post-Acute | 2.0 mi | Santa Clara, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Courtyard Care Center | 2.3 mi | San Jose, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Baywood Post Acute | 2.5 mi | Campbell, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Herman Health Care Center | 2.5 mi | San Jose, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Lincoln Glen Skilled Nursing | 2.9 mi | San Jose, CA | ★★★★★ | 3/5 | |
| Camden Postacute Care, INC | 2.9 mi | Campbell, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555068.