CRESTWOOD MANOR
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Crestwood Manor in Modesto, California, has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is slightly above average but not without its concerns. It ranks #324 out of 1155 facilities in California, placing it in the top half, and it is #4 out of 17 in Stanislaus County, suggesting there are few better local options. The facility is improving, with a decrease in reported issues from 6 in 2024 to 1 in 2025. Staffing is a strength, rated 4 out of 5 stars with a turnover rate of 25%, significantly lower than the state average, indicating that staff tend to stay longer and build relationships with residents. However, there have been serious incidents, including a resident falling due to inadequate supervision and another receiving incorrect medications, both resulting in hospital transfers. While there are strengths in staffing and a clean fine record, families should weigh these against the serious care issues identified in inspections.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In California
- #324/1155
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ✓ Good
- 25% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 23 points below California's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most California facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 13 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for California. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 20 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
Low Staff Turnover (25%) · Staff stability means consistent care
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover is low (25%)
23 points below California average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, staff retention, fire safety.
The Bad
No Significant Concerns Identified
This facility shows no red flags. Among California's 100 nursing homes, only 1% achieve this.
The Ugly 20 deficiencies on record
May 2025
1 deficiency
1 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
A resident was harmed · 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 adequate supervision was provided to prevent ac...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2024
3 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0583
(Tag F0583)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, record review, facility document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a written consent was obtained for in-room camera monitoring for 2 (...
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
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a care plan was implemented for in-room camera monitoring for 2 (Resident #103 and Resident #1...
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, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff implemented enhanced barrier precautions when they performed wound care for 1 (Resident ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2024
3 deficiencies
2 Harm
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
A resident was harmed · 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 four sampled residents (Resident 1) rec...
Read full inspector narrative →
SERIOUS
(G)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures
Deficiency F0760
(Tag F0760)
A resident was harmed · 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 four sampled residents (Resident 1) was...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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 F0726
(Tag F0726)
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 licensed nurses have the specific competencies...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 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
Abuse Prevention Policies
(Tag F0607)
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 report an alleged employee to resident physical abuse per their Pol...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 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
Deficiency F0919
(Tag F0919)
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 allow residents to call for staff assistance through a...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2019
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
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 residents and their Responsible Party (RP) were informed of ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2018
10 deficiencies
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
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 meet professional standards of quality when:
1. Lice...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
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 the medication error rate was five percent or ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
3. On 12/12/18 at 11:20 a.m., during a concurrent observation and interview in Station Three's medication room with the Director of Staff Development (DSD), a bottle of Lithium 300 milligrams in 5 mil...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0808
(Tag F0808)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure physician ordered diets were followed for two of three residents (Resident 95 and Resident 126) when salt packets were...
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 an infection prevention and control program affecting seven of seven sampled residents (Resident 10, Resident 46, Re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Room Equipment
(Tag F0908)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain equipment in operating condition when ice build-up was in the walk in freezer.
This failure had the potential for th...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0577
(Tag F0577)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the results of the Recertification, Abbreviated surveys and State agency (Department of Public Health Licensing and Ce...
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
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a baseline resident-centered care plans were developed and implemented to address residents' preference and safety while smoking for...
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
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure comprehensive resident-centered care plans (a plan that provides direction for individualized care of the resident) were developed a...
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
3. On 12/11/18 at 8:04 a.m., during a concurrent observation and interview in the kitchen, there were two steel pans with water drops stacked in the dishware storage area. The Assistant Dietary Superv...
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
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most California facilities.
- • 25% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 23 points below California's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 3 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 20 deficiencies on record, including 3 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
About This Facility
What is Crestwood Manor's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns CRESTWOOD MANOR 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 Crestwood Manor Staffed?
CMS rates CRESTWOOD MANOR's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 25%, compared to the California average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Crestwood Manor?
State health inspectors documented 20 deficiencies at CRESTWOOD MANOR during 2018 to 2025. These included: 3 that caused actual resident harm and 17 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Crestwood Manor?
CRESTWOOD MANOR 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 194 certified beds and approximately 154 residents (about 79% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in MODESTO, California.
How Does Crestwood Manor Compare to Other California Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in California, CRESTWOOD MANOR's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (25%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Crestwood Manor?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?"
Is Crestwood Manor Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, CRESTWOOD MANOR 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 4-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 Crestwood Manor Stick Around?
Staff at CRESTWOOD MANOR tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 25%, the facility is 20 percentage points below the California average of 46%. Low turnover is a positive sign. It means caregivers have time to learn each resident's needs, medications, and personal preferences. Consistent staff also notice subtle changes in a resident's condition more quickly.
Was Crestwood Manor Ever Fined?
CRESTWOOD MANOR 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 Crestwood Manor on Any Federal Watch List?
CRESTWOOD MANOR 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.