DESERT REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER D/P SNF
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Desert Regional Medical Center D/P SNF in Palm Springs has a Trust Grade of D, indicating below-average quality with several concerns. They rank #786 out of 1155 facilities in California, placing them in the bottom half of the state, and #35 out of 53 in Riverside County, meaning only a few local options are better. The facility is showing an improving trend, decreasing from 8 issues in 2024 to just 1 in 2025, and has excellent staffing with a 5/5 rating and only 22% turnover, which is below the state average. However, they have concerning fines of $14,043, higher than 79% of California facilities, and there were critical issues found, including unsanitary food storage conditions with rodent droppings in the kitchen and failures in pest control that could risk food contamination. While staffing and RN coverage are strong, the facility must address these serious health and safety concerns to better protect its residents.
- Trust Score
- D
- In California
- #786/1155
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ✓ Good
- 22% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 26 points below California's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $14,043 in fines. Higher than 74% of California facilities. Some compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 344 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
- 22 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
-
Low Staff Turnover (22%) · Staff stability means consistent care
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover is low (22%)
26 points below California average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, staff retention, fire safety.
The Bad
Below California average (3.1)
Below average - review inspection findings carefully
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
The Ugly 22 deficiencies on record
Jan 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
Notification of Changes
(Tag F0580)
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 notify the resident ' s representative, of a transfer to the Emerge...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2024
7 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 record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, and serve food in a sanitary manner, in accordance with professional standards for food service safety, as ev...
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the pharmacist recommendation to reduce the number of antico...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0801
(Tag F0801)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to designate a person to serve as the Director of Food and Nutrition Services (DFANS), who meets the State requirements for food service manag...
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, for two employees observed, to ensure infection control policy and procedures for hand hygiene and personal protective equipmen...
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 essential kitchen equipment in a safe operating condition, as evidenced by multiple pieces of equipment out of servi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Menu Adequacy
(Tag F0803)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the lunch menu served on February 27, 2024, met the nutritional need of 15 out of 16 residents in accordance with esta...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program to keep th...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2024
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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
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 allegation of verbal abuse within 2 hours to California D...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2022
9 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a care plan to address and/or monitor the low hemoglobin level (hemoglobin- blood component which carries oxygen through the blood)...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0685
(Tag F0685)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, observation and record review, the facility failed, for one of two residents (Resident 266), to provide a fo...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to administer medications according physician orders for ...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, facility failed to store a medication according to manufacturer's specificat...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
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 information regarding formulating an Advance Directive (AD -...
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 accurately track the expiration date of medications stored on the facility's crash cart (a cart containing medications and equ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to the ensure lunch meal was served at an appetizing temperature. The hot food items (Garlic Herb Pork Loin, Roasted Corn, and M...
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 store, prepare, serve and distribute resident's food under sanitary conditions when:
Five bags of pancakes were found to be n...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Room Equipment
(Tag F0908)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the food warm box (food cooked early were kept inside the equipment to keep the food warm) was not maintained regularly...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2022
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
Deficiency F0624
(Tag F0624)
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 provide and document sufficient preparation and orientation to ensu...
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
Deficiency F0660
(Tag F0660)
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 implement an effective and safe discharge for one of three resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2019
2 deficiencies
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 the enteral feeding (intake of food via the ga...
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 follow infection control measures, when IV (intravenou...
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?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • 22% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 26 points below California's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 22 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $14,043 in fines. Above average for California. Some compliance problems on record.
- • Grade D (41/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Desert Regional Medical Center D/P Snf's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns DESERT REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER D/P SNF an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within California, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.
How is Desert Regional Medical Center D/P Snf Staffed?
CMS rates DESERT REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER D/P SNF's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 22%, compared to the California average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Desert Regional Medical Center D/P Snf?
State health inspectors documented 22 deficiencies at DESERT REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER D/P SNF during 2019 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 21 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 Desert Regional Medical Center D/P Snf?
DESERT REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER D/P SNF 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 32 certified beds and approximately 15 residents (about 47% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in PALM SPRINGS, California.
How Does Desert Regional Medical Center D/P Snf Compare to Other California Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in California, DESERT REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER D/P SNF's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (22%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Desert Regional Medical Center D/P Snf?
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?" "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 facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.
Is Desert Regional Medical Center D/P Snf Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, DESERT REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER D/P SNF 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 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 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 Desert Regional Medical Center D/P Snf Stick Around?
Staff at DESERT REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER D/P SNF tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 22%, the facility is 24 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 Desert Regional Medical Center D/P Snf Ever Fined?
DESERT REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER D/P SNF has been fined $14,043 across 1 penalty action. This is below the California average of $33,219. 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 Desert Regional Medical Center D/P Snf on Any Federal Watch List?
DESERT REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER D/P SNF 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.