Yuba City Post Acute

Name: Yuba City Post Acute
Address: 1220 PLUMAS ST, Yuba City, CA, 95991, US
Telephone: 5306710550

1220 Plumas St, Yuba City, CA 95991 · Sutter County · 59 certified beds · avg 55 residents/day · certified since May 1, 1968

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

4/5

Health inspection rating (on-site)

Serious findings on record

Fines, last 3 years

3.99

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 (43)

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
Apr 1, 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
Nov 13, 2025	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Nov 13, 2025	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.
Nov 13, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · from a complaint
Nov 13, 2025	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.
Nov 13, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required.
Nov 13, 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.
Nov 13, 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.
Nov 13, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not observe each nurse aide's job performance or provide regular training as required.
Nov 13, 2025	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.
Jan 21, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The 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
Aug 30, 2024	E · Potential for harm, 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
Aug 30, 2024	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.
Aug 30, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems.
Aug 30, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Aug 30, 2024	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.
Aug 30, 2024	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Aug 30, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The 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
Aug 30, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required.
Aug 30, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it.
Aug 30, 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.
Aug 30, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The 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.
Aug 30, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Dec 14, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The 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. · from a complaint
Dec 14, 2023	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. · from a complaint
Oct 14, 2021	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them.
Oct 14, 2021	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not fully assess residents on time — a complete assessment of health, abilities, and needs is required when a resident is first admitted and at least once every 12 months after that.
Oct 14, 2021	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Oct 14, 2021	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Oct 14, 2021	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it.
Oct 14, 2021	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident.
Oct 14, 2021	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service.
Oct 14, 2021	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service.
Oct 14, 2021	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The 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.
Oct 14, 2021	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.
Oct 14, 2021	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The facility did not have a policy covering how food brought in by family and visitors is used and stored safely.
Oct 14, 2021	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.
Oct 14, 2021	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.
Oct 14, 2021	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away.
Oct 14, 2021	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The 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.
Oct 14, 2021	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.
Oct 14, 2021	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.
Oct 14, 2021	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.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (12 → 9).

Year	Citations	Worst severity that year
2021	18	F
2023	2	E
2024	12	E
2025	10	E
2026	1	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)

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

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)	3.99	4.31	3.95	bottom 41% in California; top 40% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours	0.46	0.61	0.69	bottom 46% in California; bottom 32% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing	3.81	3.90	3.50	top 46% in California; top 29% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)	0.57	0.51	0.48	top 24% in California; top 26% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)	28.6	36.7	45.8	top 25% in California; top 12% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)	0.0	38.1	42.9	—

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 4.22, RN 0.49, weekend 4.02. 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: 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%	12/16/2015
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
Hancock, Mark	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2024
Jergensen, Joshua	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2024
Larsen, Jorin	Individual	W-2 Managing Employee	NOT APPLICABLE	04/03/2023
Mitchell, John	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2024
Vemulapalli, Shailaja	Individual	Contracted Managing Employee	NOT APPLICABLE	08/09/2022

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?"
"What is your current medication error rate, and what have you changed to bring errors down?"
"Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
"If my family member falls or their condition changes, exactly when and how will I be notified?"
"Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
"Who is on the team that builds each resident's care plan, and how quickly is it in place after admission?"
"Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
"How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
"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
Bridgeview Post Acute	0.5 mi	Yuba City, CA	★★☆☆☆	1/5	abuse
Fountains, the	0.6 mi	Yuba City, CA	★★★★★	4/5
Marysville Post-Acute	2.2 mi	Marysville, CA	★★★★★	4/5
River Valley Care Center	8.2 mi	Live Oak, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5
Gridley Post Acute	15.6 mi	Gridley, CA	★★★★☆	4/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Yuba City →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 055092.

The Care File

Visit checklist — Yuba City Post Acute

1220 Plumas St, Yuba City, CA 95991 · 5306710550

Health inspection rating 4/5 · CMS overall 5/5· Fines (3y): $0

Questions for the administrator:

☐ "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
☐ "What is your current medication error rate, and what have you changed to bring errors down?"
☐ "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
☐ "If my family member falls or their condition changes, exactly when and how will I be notified?"
☐ "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
☐ "Who is on the team that builds each resident's care plan, and how quickly is it in place after admission?"
☐ "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
☐ "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
☐ "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?"

While you're there, notice:

☐ Smell and cleanliness in hallways, not just the lobby
☐ How staff speak to residents; call lights answered promptly
☐ Residents up, dressed, and engaged (visit mealtimes and a weekend if you can)

Data: CMS Provider Data Catalog, version 2026-08-01 · CCN 055092 · Verify at medicare.gov/care-compare · Printed from The Care File (thecarefile.com)