LAKESIDE SPECIAL CARE CENTER
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Lakeside Special Care Center has a Trust Grade of C+, which means it is slightly above average but not exceptional. In California, it ranks #383 out of 1155 facilities, placing it in the top half, and #45 out of 81 in San Diego County, indicating that only a few local options are better. The facility is facing a worrying trend, as the number of issues reported has increased from 3 to 6 over the past year. Staffing is a key strength, with a 5 out of 5 rating and a turnover rate of 35%, which is lower than the state average, suggesting that staff are stable and familiar with the residents. While there have been no fines, some specific concerns were noted, such as a failure to ensure a licensed nurse checked meal trays for residents, which could lead to incorrect diets, and incomplete food storage practices that pose a risk for foodborne illness. Overall, while there are notable strengths in staffing and no fines, the facility has areas that need significant improvement.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In California
- #383/1155
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 35% turnover. Near California's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most California facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 38 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for California. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 12 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (35%)
13 points below California average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
11pts below California avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 12 deficiencies on record
Feb 2025
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
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 ensure two of four residents (Resident 14 and Resident 21) reviewed...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
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 ensure a resident's medical record was completed for one of 23 samp...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
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 ensure a licensed nurse checked the meal trays for ni...
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 ensure food stored and prepared in the kitchen was in accordance with standards of practice when food items were not labeled....
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 meet the minimum requirement of 80 square feet (sq. ft...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 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
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
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 protect one of one residents (Resident 1) from sexual abuse when a ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2024
2 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
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
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 1 of 6 residents (Resident 2) was free from ph...
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
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to develop an individualized care plan for one of seven residents (Re...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2024
1 deficiency
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 food safety practices were maintained in the kitchen according to standards of practice and facility policy when:
1.
...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2023
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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
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 identify and eliminate the risk for elopement for 1 of 2 sampled r...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2022
2 deficiencies
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 that a beard restraint was worn by an employee during food preparation. This failure had the potential to cause foodbor...
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 meet the minimum requirement of 80 square feet (sq. ft...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
- "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.
- • 35% turnover. Below California's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 12 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Lakeside Special's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns LAKESIDE SPECIAL CARE CENTER an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered 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 Lakeside Special Staffed?
CMS rates LAKESIDE SPECIAL CARE CENTER's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 35%, compared to the California average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Lakeside Special?
State health inspectors documented 12 deficiencies at LAKESIDE SPECIAL CARE CENTER during 2022 to 2025. These included: 10 with potential for harm and 2 minor or isolated issues.
Who Owns and Operates Lakeside Special?
LAKESIDE SPECIAL CARE CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by GENERATIONS HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 94 certified beds and approximately 116 residents (about 123% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in LAKESIDE, California.
How Does Lakeside Special Compare to Other California Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in California, LAKESIDE SPECIAL CARE CENTER's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (35%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Lakeside Special?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "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 substantiated abuse finding on record.
Is Lakeside Special Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, LAKESIDE SPECIAL CARE CENTER has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). The facility has a 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 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 Lakeside Special Stick Around?
LAKESIDE SPECIAL CARE CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 35%, which is about average for California nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.
Was Lakeside Special Ever Fined?
LAKESIDE SPECIAL CARE CENTER 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 Lakeside Special on Any Federal Watch List?
LAKESIDE SPECIAL 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.