UNIVERSITY POST-ACUTE REHAB
Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.
University Post-Acute Rehab in Sacramento has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good option but not without its flaws. It ranks #239 out of 1155 facilities in California, placing it in the top half of state options, and #7 out of 37 in Sacramento County, which means only six local facilities are ranked higher. However, the facility is experiencing a worsening trend, with issues increasing from 7 in 2024 to 9 in 2025. Staffing is a relative strength, with a 4/5 star rating and a 34% turnover rate, slightly below the state average, and they have higher RN coverage than 95% of California facilities, ensuring better oversight of resident care. On the downside, there were notable concerns during inspections, such as a resident's oxygen tubing found uncovered on the floor, and care plans missing for three residents, which could lead to inadequate care. Additionally, the facility has incurred $3,145 in fines, which is average compared to other facilities.
- Trust Score
- B
- In California
- #239/1155
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 34% turnover. Near California's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $3,145 in fines. Higher than 68% of California facilities. Some compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 76 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
- 27 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (34%)
14 points below California average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
12pts below California avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
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
May 2025
8 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 meet professional standards for one of 19 sampled residents (Resident 8) when Resident 8's oxygen order was not implemented a...
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 pharmacy services were maintained for one of 50 residents when two controlled drug record forms (count sheet forms for...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure care plans (a summary of a person's health conditions, specific care needs, and current treatments) were developed for three of 19 s...
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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the medication rate did not exceed 5% (percent, unit of measure) for two of three sampled residents (Resident 302 and ...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were stored correctly, when:
1. Th...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0806
(Tag F0806)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide alternative meal options of similar protein/calorie value to the meal entrée when grilled cheese sandwich or c...
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 store, prepare and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety when:
1. Sanitation was compr...
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 to follow infection control policies for three sampled residents (Resident 12, Resident 24, and Resident 38) out of a census of ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 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 F0658
(Tag F0658)
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 safely administer medications according to professional standards o...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 2024
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Grievances
(Tag F0585)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and documentation review, the facility failed to resolve one of 16 sampled residents (Resident 38's) grievance when the resident's co-pay for replacement of lost hearin...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 meet professional standards of quality of care for one of 16 sampled residents (Resident 35) when a pain medication and a rena...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0676
(Tag F0676)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a communication board for one of 16 sampled residents (Resident 20) who had expressive aphasia (loss of ability to exp...
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 guidelines for Enhanced Barrier Precaution (EB...
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 documentation review, the facility failed to discard expired medications and medications with no expiration dates, for a census of 58 when, expired medications were...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jun 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
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
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 one resident (Resident 1) of two sampled residents was free ...
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
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews, clinical record review, and facility documents review, the facility failed to ensure one of three residents...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 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
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to implement policies and procedures for ensuring the reporting of an allegation of abuse when Resident 1 complained of being i...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 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 F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure medication administration in accordance with professional standards of care was provided to one of five sampled residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2022
9 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0558
(Tag F0558)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident needs were accommodated for two of 18 sampled residents (Resident 5 and Resident 10) when:
1. Call light was n...
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 resident assessments were performed in accordance with regulatory time frames for two of 18 sampled residents (Resident 5 and Reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide the summary of the baseline care plan (BCP) to one of 18 sampled residents (Resident 90).
This failure resulted in Re...
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 maintain a sanitary environment to help prevent the transmission of diseases and infections, when the dietary staff had hair ...
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
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure comprehensive assessments were performed in accordance with regulatory time frames for three of 18 sampled residents (Resident 90, R...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Resident 23 was admitted to the facility in early 2021 with diagnoses which included heel fracture, after care surgery and me...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to safely handle and store medications for a census of 4...
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 ensure safe and secure labeling and storage of medications and biologicals (vaccines or drugs) for a census of 41, when expir...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(F)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents
4. Resident 193 was admitted to the facility in late 2021 with diagnoses which includes muscle weakness, difficulty swallowing and shortness of breath.
During an observation on 1/11/21, at 8:16 a.m., ...
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.
- • $3,145 in fines. Lower than most California facilities. Relatively clean record.
- • 34% turnover. Below California's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 27 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is University Post-Acute Rehab's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns UNIVERSITY POST-ACUTE REHAB 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 University Post-Acute Rehab Staffed?
CMS rates UNIVERSITY POST-ACUTE REHAB's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 34%, compared to the California average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at University Post-Acute Rehab?
State health inspectors documented 27 deficiencies at UNIVERSITY POST-ACUTE REHAB during 2022 to 2025. These included: 27 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates University Post-Acute Rehab?
UNIVERSITY POST-ACUTE REHAB 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 59 certified beds and approximately 54 residents (about 92% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in SACRAMENTO, California.
How Does University Post-Acute Rehab Compare to Other California Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in California, UNIVERSITY POST-ACUTE REHAB's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (34%) 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 University Post-Acute Rehab?
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 University Post-Acute Rehab Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, UNIVERSITY POST-ACUTE REHAB 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 University Post-Acute Rehab Stick Around?
UNIVERSITY POST-ACUTE REHAB has a staff turnover rate of 34%, which is about average for California nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.
Was University Post-Acute Rehab Ever Fined?
UNIVERSITY POST-ACUTE REHAB has been fined $3,145 across 1 penalty action. This is below the California average of $33,110. 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 University Post-Acute Rehab on Any Federal Watch List?
UNIVERSITY POST-ACUTE REHAB 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.