ST PAUL'S TOWERS
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
St. Paul's Towers in Oakland, California has received an excellent trust grade of A, indicating that it is highly recommended and performs well compared to other facilities. It ranks #209 out of 1,155 in California, placing it in the top half of nursing homes in the state, and #21 out of 69 in Alameda County, meaning there are only 20 local options better. The facility is on an improving trend, with the number of issues decreasing from 9 in 2022 to 5 in 2024. Staffing is a strength, boasting a 5/5 star rating and a turnover rate of just 23%, well below the state average, which means staff are likely to be familiar with the residents. However, there have been some concerning findings, including improper food storage practices and sanitation issues in the kitchen, which could pose health risks. Overall, while St. Paul's Towers has notable strengths, families should be aware of the areas needing improvement.
- Trust Score
- A
- In California
- #209/1155
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ✓ Good
- 23% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 25 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 ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 82 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
- 20 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
-
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, quality measures, staff retention, fire safety.
The Bad
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 20 deficiencies on record
Sept 2024
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure standards of professional practice were maintained during medication administration for one of two sampled residents (R...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0757
(Tag F0757)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of two sampled residents (Resident 82) was free from unnecessary drug when Resident 82's PRN (pro re nata [a Latin phrase], mean...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of two sampled residents (Resident 10) was free from unnecessary psychotropic drugs (medications that are capable of affecting t...
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, staff interview, and record review, the facility failed to store and prepare food in accordance with professional standards for safety when:
1. A braising pan, a rolling pin, thr...
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 dispose garbage and refuse properly when the dumpsters were not closed and a laundry bin was used as garbage receptacle.
This...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2022
9 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0687
(Tag F0687)
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 two of two sampled residents (Resident 18 and Resident 23) who were unab...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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 observation, interview and record review, for one of one (Resident 76) investigated for accident hazards, the facility ...
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 have a Registered Nurse (RN) coverage for at least 8 consecutive hours a day on 10/2/22, 10/8/22, and 10/9/22.
This deficient practice had t...
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, for one of five residents (Resident 78) observed for medication pass administration, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services when cal...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility did not follow their policy and procedure for Medication Regimen Review (MRR...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medication Errors
(Tag F0758)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure two sampled residents (Resident 13 and 20) were free from unnecessary drugs when;
-Resident 13 was administered Olanzapine (Zyprexa...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate did not exceed five percent (%) or greater when three medication errors were observed out of...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Garbage Disposal
(Tag F0814)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure proper garbage and refuse disposal when bags of garbage were stored in a dumpster without lids outside the kitchen area.
This failure ...
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, interviews and record review, the facility failed to follow proper sanitation and food storage practices when:
- The High temperature dishwasher was not within the required temp...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2019
6 deficiencies
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 develop a comprehensive care plan for three (Residents 1, 6, 22) of...
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 ensure medication and biologicals were current and safe for use on residents when one bottle of Aspirin (medication used for ...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 observation, interview, and record review, for one of 12 sampled residents (Resident 6), the facility failed to ensure ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
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 follow the policy and procedure and act upon the phar...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0790
(Tag F0790)
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 assist and provide one (Resident 22) of 15 sampled re...
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 prepared and stored in a sanitary manner when:
1. Inside the walk-in refrigerator # 1 and # 2, there were mul...
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
- • Grade A (90/100). Above average facility, better than most options in California.
- • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most California facilities.
- • 23% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 25 points below California's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- • 20 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is St Paul'S Towers's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns ST PAUL'S TOWERS 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 Paul'S Towers Staffed?
CMS rates ST PAUL'S TOWERS's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much 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 St Paul'S Towers?
State health inspectors documented 20 deficiencies at ST PAUL'S TOWERS during 2019 to 2024. These included: 20 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates St Paul'S Towers?
ST PAUL'S TOWERS is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility is operated by FRONT PORCH, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 43 certified beds and approximately 24 residents (about 56% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in OAKLAND, California.
How Does St Paul'S Towers Compare to Other California Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in California, ST PAUL'S TOWERS's overall rating (5 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 St Paul'S Towers?
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 St Paul'S Towers Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, ST PAUL'S TOWERS 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 Paul'S Towers Stick Around?
Staff at ST PAUL'S TOWERS tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 23%, the facility is 22 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. Registered Nurse turnover is also low at 22%, meaning experienced RNs are available to handle complex medical needs.
Was St Paul'S Towers Ever Fined?
ST PAUL'S TOWERS 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 St Paul'S Towers on Any Federal Watch List?
ST PAUL'S TOWERS 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.