CaliforniaSacramento

Woodside Healthcare Center

2240 Northrop Ave, Sacramento, CA 95825 · Sacramento County · 58 certified beds · avg 55 residents/day · certified since Nov 5, 2002

Part of chain: CYPRESS HEALTHCARE GROUP (13 facilities, chain avg rating 3.8★)

4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.58
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: 5/5

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.

All citations in the current public record (21)

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
Nov 22, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Nov 22, 2024E · 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 22, 2024E · 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 22, 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.
Nov 22, 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.
Nov 22, 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.
Nov 22, 2024D · 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.
Nov 22, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Nov 22, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have a working call system — the button or cord residents use to summon help — in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
Nov 2, 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 2, 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 2, 2023D · 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.
Nov 2, 2023D · 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.
Dec 3, 2021F · 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.
Dec 3, 2021E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Dec 3, 2021E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle.
Dec 3, 2021E · 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.
Dec 3, 2021E · 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.
Dec 3, 2021D · 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.
Dec 3, 2021D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Dec 3, 2021D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (4 → 9).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202180F
202340F
202490E

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)

No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.

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)4.584.313.95top 25% in California; top 21% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.580.610.69top 35% in California; bottom 48% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing4.233.903.50top 23% in California; top 17% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.320.510.48bottom 39% in California; bottom 37% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)23.836.745.8top 14% in California; top 6% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)12.538.142.9top 8% in California; top 6% 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 4.42, RN 0.55, weekend 4.08. 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: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Cypress Healthcare Group LLCOrganizationDirect Ownership InterestNOT APPLICABLE09/29/2023
Barkovskii, DmitriiIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/30/2025
Barkovskii, DmitriiIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/30/2025
Beam, RebeccaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2019
Beam, RebeccaIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2019
Fastovich, LyubovIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE03/29/2021
Fastovich, LyubovIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE03/29/2021
Jackson, MatthewIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2019
Jackson, MatthewIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2019
Jackson, MatthewIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2019
Jackson, RobertIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2019
Jackson, RobertIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2019
Jackson, RobertIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2019
Klimovich, IrinaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE09/29/2023
Klimovich, IrinaIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE09/16/2021
Lee, MaiIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE02/12/2024
Lee, MaiIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE02/12/2024
Pastrano-Oclarino, MylaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE03/09/2021
Pastrano-Oclarino, MylaIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE03/09/2021
Portela, AliciaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE02/01/2021

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
Asbury Park Nursing and Rehabilitation Center0.5 miSacramento, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Sherwood Healthcare Center1.6 miSacramento, CA★★★★★4/5
Gramercy Court1.7 miSacramento, CA★★★★☆2/5abuse
Arden Park Post Acute2.0 miSacramento, CA★★★☆☆2/5abuse
McKinley Park Care Center2.8 miSacramento, CA★★★★☆3/5
Saylor Lane Healthcare Center2.9 miSacramento, CA★★★★☆3/5
Advanced Health Care of Sacramento2.9 miSacramento, CA★★★★★4/5
University Post-Acute Rehab3.1 miSacramento, CA★★★★★4/5
Mid-Town Oaks Post-Acute3.3 miSacramento, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Mission Carmichael Healthcare Center4.4 miCarmichael, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Whitney Oaks Care Center4.6 miCarmichael, CA★★★☆☆2/5
River City Post Acute4.8 miCarmichael, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5abuse

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Sacramento →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555798.