LAKE PARK HEALTHCARE CENTER
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Lake Park Healthcare Center has received a Trust Grade of C, which means it is average among nursing homes, ranking in the middle of the pack. In California, it ranks #381 out of 1,155 facilities, placing it in the top half, and #35 out of 69 in Alameda County, indicating that only a few local homes are rated higher. The facility is improving, as the number of reported issues decreased from 9 in 2023 to 3 in 2024. Staffing is a concern, with a turnover rate of 60%, significantly higher than the California average of 38%. However, it boasts good RN coverage, exceeding 88% of state facilities, which helps ensure better resident care. On the downside, the center has incurred $44,421 in fines, higher than 93% of California facilities, signaling compliance issues. Specific incidents of concern include critical failures in food safety practices, where food temperatures were not monitored for all residents, and serious lapses in medication security, where a treatment cart was left unlocked and accessible to residents. Additionally, food storage practices were unsafe, with raw pork stored above ready-to-eat shrimp, raising the risk of foodborne illnesses. While there are strengths in RN coverage and an improving trend, these serious deficiencies warrant careful consideration.
- Trust Score
- C
- In California
- #381/1155
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ⚠ Watch
- 60% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $44,421 in fines. Higher than 60% of California facilities. Some compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 63 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of California nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 18 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
14pts above California avg (46%)
Frequent staff changes - ask about care continuity
Above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
12 points above California average of 48%
The Ugly 18 deficiencies on record
Nov 2024
3 deficiencies
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 follow appropriate infection control practice when reusable resident-care equipment was not cleaned/disinfected in between res...
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
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to properly secure medications and sharp instruments when one treatment cart was left unlocked and unsupervised, in an area where...
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 was stored and prepared under safe and sanitary conditions when:
1. Dry food items were stored less than 6 inches...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2023
8 deficiencies
1 IJ (1 facility-wide)
CRITICAL
(L)
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents
⚠️ Facility-wide issue
Based on observation, interview and records review the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 18 out of 18 s...
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the annual Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool used to guide resident care) was completed within the required timeframes for o...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0638
(Tag F0638)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool used to guide resident care) were completed and submitted within the require...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
MDS Data Transmission
(Tag F0640)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Discharge Assessment Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool used to guide resident care) were completed no later than 14 cale...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0727
(Tag F0727)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to provide the services of a Registered Nurse (RN) for at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week when the facility did not have RN in a...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. A review of Resident 11's admission Record [face sheet] indicated, Resident 11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with mu...
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. maintain an accurate accountability sheet that documented the number of controlled substances (Diazepam tablets) that sho...
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 observations, interviews, and document reviews, the facility failed to ensure its medication error rate was less than 5...
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
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 provide food that accommodated resident ' s preferenc...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2022
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Unnecessary Medications
(Tag F0759)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observations, interviews, and document reviews, the facility failed to be free of medication error rate of five percent or greater for two medication errors observed out of 27 opportunities w...
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 store and label food safely when Refrigerator #1 (Ref #1) had two boxes of lactose free milk and one soy original milk with n...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Antibiotic Stewardship
(Tag F0881)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and document review, for one of nine sampled residents (Resident 1), the facility failed to ensure a resident was monitored during the use of antibiotic (medication used to treat ba...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0888
(Tag F0888)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to develop policies and procedures to address COVID-19 (an infectious disease spread by person to person through respiratory d...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Assessments
(Tag F0636)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** During a review of Resident 1's MDS Section C, dated 7/21/22, the MDS Section C indicated, a Brief Interview for Mental Status n...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and document review, the facility failed to follow its pneumonia vaccine policy and procedure for four of nin...
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?"
- "Why is there high staff turnover? How do you retain staff?"
- "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.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), $44,421 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 18 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $44,421 in fines. Higher than 94% of California facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- • Grade C (53/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Lake Park Healthcare Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns LAKE PARK HEALTHCARE 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 Lake Park Healthcare Center Staffed?
CMS rates LAKE PARK HEALTHCARE CENTER's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 60%, which is 14 percentage points above the California average of 46%. High turnover can affect care consistency as new staff learn residents' individual needs. RN turnover specifically is 64%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Lake Park Healthcare Center?
State health inspectors documented 18 deficiencies at LAKE PARK HEALTHCARE CENTER during 2022 to 2024. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 17 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 Lake Park Healthcare Center?
LAKE PARK HEALTHCARE 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 ASPEN SKILLED HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 35 certified beds and approximately 28 residents (about 80% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in OAKLAND, California.
How Does Lake Park Healthcare Center Compare to Other California Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in California, LAKE PARK HEALTHCARE CENTER's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (60%) is significantly higher than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Lake Park Healthcare Center?
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?" "How do you ensure continuity of care given staff turnover, and what is your staff retention strategy?" "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 facility's high staff turnover rate.
Is Lake Park Healthcare Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, LAKE PARK HEALTHCARE CENTER 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 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 Lake Park Healthcare Center Stick Around?
Staff turnover at LAKE PARK HEALTHCARE CENTER is high. At 60%, the facility is 14 percentage points above the California average of 46%. Registered Nurse turnover is particularly concerning at 64%. RNs handle complex medical decisions and coordinate care — frequent RN changes can directly impact care quality. High turnover means new staff may not know residents' individual needs, medications, or preferences. It can also be disorienting for residents, especially those with dementia who rely on familiar faces. Families should ask: What is causing the turnover? What retention programs are in place? How do you ensure care continuity during staff transitions?
Was Lake Park Healthcare Center Ever Fined?
LAKE PARK HEALTHCARE CENTER has been fined $44,421 across 7 penalty actions. The California average is $33,523. 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 Lake Park Healthcare Center on Any Federal Watch List?
LAKE PARK HEALTHCARE 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.