ST ANTHONY CARE CENTER
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
St. Anthony Care Center has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice among nursing homes. It ranks #207 out of 1155 facilities in California, placing it in the top half, and #19 out of 69 in Alameda County, suggesting only a few local options are better. The facility is improving, with issues decreasing from 4 in 2024 to just 1 in 2025. However, staffing is a weakness, receiving only 1 out of 5 stars, which raises concerns about resident care. The center has accumulated $51,355 in fines, which is higher than 96% of California facilities, indicating potential compliance problems. While the care quality and health inspections are rated excellent with 5 out of 5 stars, there are notable concerns regarding sanitation and resident dignity. For instance, there were incidents where food was improperly stored and prepared, potentially risking foodborne illnesses. Additionally, residents experienced discomfort during feeding as staff leaned over them, which could lead to feelings of embarrassment. Lastly, some living conditions were not adequately maintained, such as unclean rooms and malfunctioning facilities, impacting the overall environment for residents.
- Trust Score
- B
- In California
- #207/1155
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- Turnover data not reported for this facility.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $51,355 in fines. Lower than most California facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 18 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for California. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 21 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
The Ugly 21 deficiencies on record
May 2025
1 deficiency
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
Deficiency F0627
(Tag F0627)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide an accurate medication list that included both prescription and over-the-counter medications at the time of discharge to one out of...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2024
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
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 supplies stored in the medication storage room...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure safe, sanitary storage and distribution of foods when
1. dates of opened food packages were not labeled.
2. temperature...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
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:
1. follow proper handwashing/hand hygiene protocol.
...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0912
(Tag F0912)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility had five residents' rooms (room [ROOM NUMBER], 2, 4, 5 and 8) with multiple bed...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2023
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
3. A review of Resident 8's admission Record, indicated Resident 8 was admitted to the facility with multiple diagnoses including dementia (dementia is a general term for loss of memory, language, pro...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
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, for one of 15 sampled residents (Resident 26) with limited range of motion (...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Tube Feeding
(Tag F0693)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the prevention of complications of enteral feedings for one of one sample selected resident who has a feeding tube at ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure prevention of infection for one of 15 sample selected residents (Resident 12), when Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 d...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow proper sanitation, food handling, and food storage practices when:
1. Refrigerator 1 had two bags of iceberg lettuce t...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0912
(Tag F0912)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview the facility had five residents (Rt)'s rooms (room [ROOM NUMBER], 2, 4, 5 and 8) with multipl...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2021
10 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
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 provide fingernail trimming and/or facial hair removal...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the pharmacist's medication regimen review (MRR) was promptly acted upon for one (Residents 5) of 11 sampled residents.
This failure...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one (Resident 23) of 11 sampled residents was free of significant medication errors when Licensed Vocational Nurse 2 (L...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to sanitize the ice machine's ice bin at the time of installation.
This failure had the potential to result in resident food bo...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
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 provide care in a manner that enhanced the dignity of ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide a clean, safe, home-like environment for:
1. One of 11 sampled residents (Resident 17), when Resident 17's bed moved ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to:
1. Ensure one of (Resident 179) of 11 sampled residents received four medications as ordered by the physician.
2. Ensure expi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain and implement infection control measures for six of 11 residents (3, 5, 10, 19, 21, and 23) when:
1. Certified Nursi...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0911
(Tag F0911)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility had one resident room (room [ROOM NUMBER]), that accommodated more than four re...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0912
(Tag F0912)
Minor procedural issue · 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 provide 17 of 17 residents in the following multiple r...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • 21 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
- • $51,355 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in California. Major compliance failures.
About This Facility
What is St Anthony's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns ST ANTHONY CARE CENTER an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much above average nationally. Within California, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.
How is St Anthony Staffed?
CMS rates ST ANTHONY CARE CENTER's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes.
What Have Inspectors Found at St Anthony?
State health inspectors documented 21 deficiencies at ST ANTHONY CARE CENTER during 2021 to 2025. These included: 17 with potential for harm and 4 minor or isolated issues.
Who Owns and Operates St Anthony?
ST ANTHONY CARE CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 30 certified beds and approximately 25 residents (about 83% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in HAYWARD, California.
How Does St Anthony Compare to Other California Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in California, ST ANTHONY CARE CENTER's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.2 and health inspection rating (5 stars) is much above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting St Anthony?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the below-average staffing rating.
Is St Anthony Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, ST ANTHONY CARE CENTER has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in California. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at St Anthony Stick Around?
ST ANTHONY CARE CENTER 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 St Anthony Ever Fined?
ST ANTHONY CARE CENTER has been fined $51,355 across 1 penalty action. This is above the California average of $33,592. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.
Is St Anthony on Any Federal Watch List?
ST ANTHONY CARE CENTER 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.