JEROLD PHELPS COMM HOSP SNF
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Jerold Phelps Community Hospital SNF has received a Trust Grade of F, which indicates significant concerns about the facility's quality and safety. Ranking #827 out of 1155 facilities in California places it in the bottom half, while its county rank of #3 out of 5 suggests that only two local options are better. The facility is showing signs of improvement, with issues decreasing from 7 in 2024 to 3 in 2025. Staffing is a notable strength, boasting a turnover rate of 0%, which is well below the California average, but the staffing rating is only 1 out of 5 stars. There are no fines reported, which is a positive sign, but the facility has faced serious deficiencies, including allowing a resident to smoke in unsafe conditions and failing to properly document and investigate allegations of abuse, raising concerns about resident safety and care quality.
- Trust Score
- F
- In California
- #827/1155
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- Turnover data not reported for this facility.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most California facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 48 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than average for California. RNs are trained to catch health problems early.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 24 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in fire safety.
The Bad
Below California average (3.1)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
The Ugly 24 deficiencies on record
Apr 2025
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one resident (Resident 1) of three sampled residents was treated with respect and dignity when Certified Nursing Assistant A (CNA A)...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure:
1. An allegation of abuse was reported to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) within 2 hours of awareness of the al...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Abuse Prevention Policies
(Tag F0607)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure their policy regarding resident abuse indicated the person responsible for investigating abuse allegations was to submit allegations...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2024
7 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0552
(Tag F0552)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of six residents (Resident 57) was informed in advance, by the physician or other practitioner or professional, of ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Assessments
(Tag F0636)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to complete a smoking assessment on admission for one of six residents (Resident 57) to determine Resident 57's functional capac...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain an environment free from accident hazards and...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** A review of Resident 1's face sheet (demographics) indicated he was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included H...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
During an interview on 03/1/24 at 10 a.m. Licensed Nurse K (LN K) stated new residents signed documents in an admission packet. She did not know if a care plan was developed within 48 hours of admissi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a person-centered comprehensive care plan for 5 of 6 reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0837
(Tag F0837)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and record review, the Governing Body (individuals such as facility owner(s), chief Executive Officer(s), or other individuals who are legally responsible to establish and implement...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2021
11 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Assessments
(Tag F0636)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of eight residents (Resident 58) received a ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0676
(Tag F0676)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Finding:
During an interview on 5/18/21, at 3 p.m., Interim Chief Nursing Officer stated she did not have a facility Policy and ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure the safe and secure disposition of medications, including narcotics destruction, and diversion prevention, when an unsecu...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
QAPI Program
(Tag F0867)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to consistently Identify quality deficiencies and develop and implement action plans to correct identified quality deficiencies.
This failure...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0868
(Tag F0868)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Medical Director attended the Quality Assessment and Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee meetings. This failure had the pot...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0638
(Tag F0638)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure four of eight residents (Resident 3, Resident 59, Resident ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to complete admission assessments and baseline care plans...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not develop and implement care plans for residents that were...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not provide professional standards of pain relief when effectiveness of pain medication administration was not assessed and document...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility did not ensure resident medications were stored according to Policy and Procedure, manufacturer's recommendations, and National Standard...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the food safety requirements were met when:
1. The meats were stored above ready to eat foods.
2. One of three Dietary St...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2019
3 deficiencies
1 IJ (1 facility-wide)
CRITICAL
(L)
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents
⚠️ Facility-wide issue
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure eight out of eight sampled residents were safe from fire when one resident (Resident 9) was permitted to smoke in an a...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to document the use of an antipsychotic medication on the MDS (minimum...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Deficiency Text Not Available
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most California facilities.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 24 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • Grade F (38/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Jerold Phelps Comm Hosp Snf's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns JEROLD PHELPS COMM HOSP SNF an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within California, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.
How is Jerold Phelps Comm Hosp Snf Staffed?
CMS rates JEROLD PHELPS COMM HOSP SNF's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes.
What Have Inspectors Found at Jerold Phelps Comm Hosp Snf?
State health inspectors documented 24 deficiencies at JEROLD PHELPS COMM HOSP SNF during 2019 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 23 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Jerold Phelps Comm Hosp Snf?
JEROLD PHELPS COMM HOSP SNF is owned by a government entity. Government-operated facilities are typically run by state, county, or municipal agencies. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 17 certified beds and approximately 6 residents (about 35% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in GARBERVILLE, California.
How Does Jerold Phelps Comm Hosp Snf Compare to Other California Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in California, JEROLD PHELPS COMM HOSP SNF's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.1 and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Jerold Phelps Comm Hosp Snf?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the below-average staffing rating.
Is Jerold Phelps Comm Hosp Snf Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, JEROLD PHELPS COMM HOSP SNF has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in California. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Jerold Phelps Comm Hosp Snf Stick Around?
JEROLD PHELPS COMM HOSP SNF has not reported staff turnover data to CMS. Staff turnover matters because consistent caregivers learn residents' individual needs, medications, and preferences. When staff frequently change, this institutional knowledge is lost. Families should ask the facility directly about their staff retention rates and average employee tenure.
Was Jerold Phelps Comm Hosp Snf Ever Fined?
JEROLD PHELPS COMM HOSP SNF has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.
Is Jerold Phelps Comm Hosp Snf on Any Federal Watch List?
JEROLD PHELPS COMM HOSP SNF is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.