MONTCLAIR MANOR CARE CENTER
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Montclair Manor Care Center has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice for families, offering a solid level of care. It ranks #409 out of 1,155 nursing homes in California, placing it in the top half of facilities, and #30 out of 54 in San Bernardino County, suggesting only a few local options are better. However, the facility is currently worsening, with issues increasing from 4 in 2024 to 13 in 2025. Staffing is a strength, with a rating of 4 out of 5 stars and a low turnover rate of 23%, which is better than the California average of 38%. On the downside, they have received $2,098 in fines, an average amount, and there have been concerning incidents, such as poor food safety practices in the kitchen, including dirty ice machines and improper food storage that could lead to contamination.
- Trust Score
- B
- In California
- #409/1155
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ✓ Good
- 23% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 25 points below California's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $2,098 in fines. Lower than most California facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 31 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for California. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 27 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 (23%) · Staff stability means consistent care
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover is low (23%)
25 points below California average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, staff retention, fire safety.
The Bad
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 27 deficiencies on record
Apr 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 F0573
(Tag F0573)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to provide medical records to the party responsible for one of four residents (Resident 1) in a timely manner, in accordance with the facilit...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2025
12 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, and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident's electronic health records (EHR- medical records kept on a computer system) were kept private and protected ...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the care plan (specific interventions to provide effective a...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Incontinence Care
(Tag F0690)
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 their catheter (tube that is inserted into your bladder, all...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
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 coordinate and arrange the dialysis (procedure to rem...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0806
(Tag F0806)
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 food preferences were accommodated for one of ...
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 ensure proper and safe infection control practices we...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Room Equipment
(Tag F0908)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure two sinks in the kitchen were in safe operating condition when:
1. The hand washing sink drainpipe (a pipe carrying o...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. During a review of Resident 41's admission Record (contains demographic and medical information), it indicated Resident 41 wa...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Menu Adequacy
(Tag F0803)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow their daily approved menu for lunch on April 1, 2025, and April 2, 2025, when:
1. On April 1, 2025, Dietary [NAME] 1 (...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure safe, sanitary food preparation, and storage p...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0925
(Tag F0925)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest (insect or animal such as rodents that can spread disease) control program when in the kitchen, a ...
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 ensure ten rooms (Rooms 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 1...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2024
4 deficiencies
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 interviews, record reviews, and facility document and policy review, the facility failed to have evidence that pharmacy recommendations were communicated to the physician, and physician respo...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure single-use packets of topical medications were not stored at the bedside for 1 (Resident #14) of 1 sampled resident o...
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 interviews, record reviews, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure documentation was completed and d...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0912
(Tag F0912)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
Based on observations, interviews, and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure the required 80 square feet (sq ft) per resident was met for 12 of 18 resident rooms (rooms 4, 5, 6, 7, 8...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2022
10 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set Assessment (MDS - a computerized assessment instrument) for one resident (Resident 31) r...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive and personalized care plan to ad...
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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate treatment and services to increase range of motion (measurement of how far you can move a specific joint ...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate treatment and management of a gast...
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 failed to properly record and account for a medication removed from one of 12 Emergency Kits (E-kit- secure box kept with medications i...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. During a record review of Resident 14's medical record, the admission Record indicated Resident 14 was admitted to the facili...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain infection control practices when:
1. Staff d...
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 on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain professional standards for food service safety when two sinks in the kitchen did not have an air gap (separation of ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Garbage Disposal
(Tag F0814)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three outside dumpster lids were completely closed.
This failure had the potential to attract vermin (pest or a...
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 a minimum of 80 square feet (sq. ft.- unit of...
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 major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
- • $2,098 in fines. Lower than most California facilities. Relatively clean record.
- • 23% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 25 points below California's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- • 27 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Montclair Manor's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns MONTCLAIR MANOR 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 Montclair Manor Staffed?
CMS rates MONTCLAIR MANOR CARE CENTER's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 23%, compared to the California average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Montclair Manor?
State health inspectors documented 27 deficiencies at MONTCLAIR MANOR CARE CENTER during 2022 to 2025. These included: 24 with potential for harm and 3 minor or isolated issues.
Who Owns and Operates Montclair Manor?
MONTCLAIR MANOR 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 EVA CARE GROUP, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 59 certified beds and approximately 50 residents (about 85% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in MONTCLAIR, California.
How Does Montclair Manor Compare to Other California Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in California, MONTCLAIR MANOR CARE CENTER's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (23%) 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 Montclair 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 Montclair Manor Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, MONTCLAIR MANOR 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 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 Montclair Manor Stick Around?
Staff at MONTCLAIR MANOR CARE CENTER tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 23%, the facility is 23 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 Montclair Manor Ever Fined?
MONTCLAIR MANOR CARE CENTER has been fined $2,098 across 1 penalty action. This is below the California average of $33,100. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.
Is Montclair Manor on Any Federal Watch List?
MONTCLAIR MANOR 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.