VI AT PALO ALTO
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
The VI at Palo Alto has a Trust Grade of B+, which means it is recommended and considered above average compared to other nursing homes. It ranks #247 out of 1,155 facilities in California, placing it in the top half overall, and #16 out of 50 in Santa Clara County, indicating that only a few local options are better. However, the facility is experiencing a worsening trend, with issues increasing from 6 in 2023 to 8 in 2024. Staffing is a strong point, as it received a 5-star rating with only a 25% turnover rate, significantly lower than the California average, and it has more RN coverage than 91% of state facilities, which is beneficial for resident care. On the downside, there have been serious incidents, including a failure to adequately assess a resident's needs that led to a fall and serious injuries, as well as concerns about food safety standards that could pose health risks to residents.
- Trust Score
- B+
- In California
- #247/1155
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- 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 ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 79 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 Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
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, quality measures, staff retention, fire safety.
The Bad
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 18 deficiencies on record
Aug 2024
6 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 policy review, the facility failed to protect the rights of residents to confidentiality of protected health information (PHI, any information in the medical recor...
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 provide appropriate pharmaceutical services when there were discrepancies between the controlled drug (those with high potenti...
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 had a facility medication error rate of 7.59% when two medication errors occurred out of 26 opportunities during medication administrati...
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 implement infection prevention and control practices ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0700
(Tag F0700)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 5. Review of Resident 12's facesheet indicated she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of aftercare followin...
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 in accordance with professional standards for food safety when:
1. There was an opened undated food ite...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2024
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate assessment and supervision to prevent an accident ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 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
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure an environment free of accidents when one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) fell during mechanical lift transfer. This failure...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 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 F0655
(Tag F0655)
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 the resident and /or their representative with a summary of...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2023
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
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/or document restorative nursing assistant (RNA) treatme...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
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 oxygen in accordance with professional sta...
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** 2. During a medication administration observation with Licensed Vocational Nurse C (LVN C) on 3/13/23 at 11:10 a.m., in Resident...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement the antibiotic stewardship program (program intended to p...
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 document review, the facility failed to ensure food was stored and prepared under sanitary conditions when:
1. There were unlabeled and undated food items in the k...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2019
4 deficiencies
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 document review, the facility's pharmacy failed to ensure there was no expired medication in one of three emergency kits (E-kits). This failure had the potential to...
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 monitor for side effects of psychotropic medications (medications capable of affecting the mind, emotions and behavior) for one of eight sa...
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 had an eight percent medication error rate when two medication errors out of 25 opportunities were observed during medication pass for t...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Review of Resident 3's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated he required extensive assistance (staff provide weight-bearing support) f...
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 B+ (85/100). Above average facility, better than most options in California.
- • 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.
- • 18 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
About This Facility
What is Vi At Palo Alto's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns VI AT PALO ALTO 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 Vi At Palo Alto Staffed?
CMS rates VI AT PALO ALTO's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much 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 Vi At Palo Alto?
State health inspectors documented 18 deficiencies at VI AT PALO ALTO during 2019 to 2024. These included: 1 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 Vi At Palo Alto?
VI AT PALO ALTO 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 VI LIVING, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 44 certified beds and approximately 37 residents (about 84% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in PALO ALTO, California.
How Does Vi At Palo Alto Compare to Other California Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in California, VI AT PALO ALTO's overall rating (5 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 Vi At Palo Alto?
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 Vi At Palo Alto Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, VI AT PALO ALTO 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 Vi At Palo Alto Stick Around?
Staff at VI AT PALO ALTO tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 25%, the facility is 21 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 29%, meaning experienced RNs are available to handle complex medical needs.
Was Vi At Palo Alto Ever Fined?
VI AT PALO ALTO 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 Vi At Palo Alto on Any Federal Watch List?
VI AT PALO ALTO 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.