How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Woodlands Healthcare Center
14966 Terreno De Flores Lane, Los Gatos, CA 95032 (opens Google Maps) · Santa Clara County · (408) 356-8136· 65 certified beds · avg 62 residents/day · certified since Dec 31, 1971 · 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: ASPEN SKILLED HEALTHCARE (35 facilities, chain avg rating 3.7★)
5/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Feb 12, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.01
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 26 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The 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. · from a complaint F-0605
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 F-0658
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
View all 26 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 19, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · from a complaint · F-0605 |
| Sep 19, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0658 |
| Feb 12, 2025 | 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 |
| Dec 11, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 · F-0880 |
| Oct 13, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0656 |
| Oct 13, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658 |
| Oct 13, 2023 | 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. · F-0684 |
| Oct 13, 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 |
| Oct 13, 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 |
| Oct 13, 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 |
| Oct 13, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Oct 13, 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 |
| Oct 13, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have a policy covering how food brought in by family and visitors is used and stored safely. · F-0813 |
| Aug 17, 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. · from a complaint · F-0755 |
| Dec 17, 2021 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Dec 17, 2021 | 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. · F-0684 |
| Dec 17, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Dec 17, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0554 |
| Dec 17, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0578 |
| Dec 17, 2021 | 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 |
| Dec 17, 2021 | 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 |
| Dec 17, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0695 |
| Dec 17, 2021 | 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 |
| Dec 17, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0757 |
| Dec 17, 2021 | 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 |
| Dec 17, 2021 | 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 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (9 → 1).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2021
All citations: 12
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 10
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 1
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 3
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 12 | 0 | F |
| 2023 | 10 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 1 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 3 | 0 | D |
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: 4.01
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.81
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.57
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) | 4.01 | 4.31 | 3.95 | bottom 42% in California; top 39% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.81 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 17% in California; top 27% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.57 | 3.90 | 3.50 | bottom 35% in California; top 39% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.75 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 13% in California; top 13% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 46.5 | 36.7 | 45.8 | bottom 21% in California; bottom 46% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 76.9 | 38.1 | 42.9 | bottom 4% in California; bottom 7% 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 4.14, RN 0.84, weekend 3.69.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.14 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.
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: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Woodlands Healthcare Center. 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 →
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Algt,llc | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 11/01/2009 |
| Bradshaw, Peter | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/07/2023 |
| Elsner, Eric | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2009 |
| Kirkwood, Jared | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2019 |
| Orgill, Craig | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2019 |
| Parti, Rajesh | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2009 |
| Parti, Shruty | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2009 |
| Paxman, Marcus | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2022 |
| Sequoia Healthcare Group LLC | Organization | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2023 |
| Algt,llc | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2009 |
| Algt,llc | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2009 |
| Aspen Healthcare Services LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2023 |
| Bradshaw, Jeffrey | Individual | Individual Is an Owner, Partner or Trustee of Any ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/02/2026 |
| Bradshaw, Jeffrey | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2023 |
| Chi, Andrew | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/08/2024 |
| Chi, Andrew | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/08/2024 |
| East West Bank | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2009 |
| J. Cyril Johnson Investments Corp | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/22/2026 |
| Jurado, Frank | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2023 |
| Moss Adams LLP | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2009 |
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 Aspen Skilled Healthcare — 35 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.
- The Rehabilitation Center at the Palazzo — Phoenix, AZ · overall 4/5
- Alta Healthcare Center of Camarillo — Camarillo, CA · overall 4/5
- Berkley East Healthcare Center — Santa Monica, CA · overall 2/5
- Berkley Post-Acute — Van Nuys, CA · overall 3/5
- Berkley West Healthcare Center — Santa Monica, CA · overall 3/5
- Bixby Towers Post-Acute Rehab — Long Beach, CA · overall 2/5SFF
- Cottonwood Healthcare Center — Woodland, CA · overall 5/5
- Country Crest Post-Acute — Oroville, CA · overall 4/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 34 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
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 percentage of your residents are on antipsychotic or sedating medications, and how do you work to reduce that?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "If my family member's health suddenly changes, how quickly do you reassess them and update their care?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "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?"
- "Could I join residents for a meal to see the food quality and temperature for myself?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the California midpoint — how does the weekend schedule differ from a weekday?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 47% 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 55 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plum Tree Care Center | 0.1 mi | San Jose, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Stonebrook Health and Rehabilitation | 0.4 mi | Los Gatos, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Childrens HC Org No Ca -Pediatric Hospital D/P SNF | 0.6 mi | Campbell, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Almaden Health and Rehabilitation Center | 1.2 mi | San Jose, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| The Terraces of Los Gatos | 1.3 mi | Los Gatos, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Camden Postacute Care, INC | 1.4 mi | Campbell, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Vasona Creek Healthcare Center | 1.9 mi | Los Gatos, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Baywood Post Acute | 2.3 mi | Campbell, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Childrens HC Org No Ca Saratoga Pediatric Subacute | 3.1 mi | Saratoga, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Lincoln Glen Skilled Nursing | 3.3 mi | San Jose, CA | ★★★★★ | 3/5 | |
| Saratoga Retirement Community Health Center | 3.3 mi | Saratoga, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Creekside Post-Acute | 3.5 mi | San Jose, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 |
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.
- A Grace Sub Acute & Skilled Care — San Jose, CA · overall 4/5
- Camino Ridge Post-Acute — Mountain View, CA · overall 1/5
- Canyon Springs Post-Acute — San Jose, CA · overall 4/5
- Cedar Crest Nursing and Rehabilitation Center — Sunnyvale, 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 055517.