SHANDIN HILLS BEHAVIOR THERAPY CENTER
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Shandin Hills Behavior Therapy Center has a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice among nursing homes. It ranks #194 out of 1,155 facilities in California, placing it comfortably in the top half, and #13 out of 54 in San Bernardino County, meaning there are only a dozen better local options. The facility is improving, as it reduced its issues from 6 in 2024 to just 2 in 2025. Staffing is average with a 3/5 star rating and a turnover rate of 39%, similar to the state average, which suggests some stability among staff. There were no fines reported, which is a positive sign. However, there have been some concerning incidents. A serious issue occurred when a resident with impaired judgment managed to elope from the facility, posing significant safety risks. Additionally, there were several concerns regarding food safety, such as serving outdated items and failing to follow the approved meal menu, which could compromise the residents' nutritional needs. Overall, while Shandin Hills has strengths in its ranking and lack of fines, families should be aware of the serious incidents that have been reported.
- Trust Score
- B
- In California
- #194/1155
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 39% turnover. Near California's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most California facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 13 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for California. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 22 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
-
Staff turnover below average (39%)
9 points below California average of 48%
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near California avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
The Ugly 22 deficiencies on record
Feb 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
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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to prevent one of four sample residents (Resident 1) from...
Read full inspector narrative →
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
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, the facility failed to implement adequate monitoring and supervision for one...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2024
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0576
(Tag F0576)
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 failed to ensure the residents rights to forms of communication were respect...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0805
(Tag F0805)
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 the menu for dysphagia mechanical soft diet (t...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
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 observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure when one of one sampled residents (Resident ...
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 ensure safe, sanitary food preparation, and storage practices in the kitchen when:
1. There was two plastic drawers with food...
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 follow their daily approved menu for lunch when, on November 12, 2024, Dietary [NAME] served a mixture of lettuce, tomato, an...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0912
(Tag F0912)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide a minimum of 80 square feet (sq. ft.- unit of measurement) of...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2023
4 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
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 informed consents (process in which a health c...
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 ensure safe, sanitary food preparation, and storage practices in the kitchen when:
1. There were eight outdated cups of prune...
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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement the water management plan in accordance with their own policy and procedure.
This failure had the potential to resu...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0912
(Tag F0912)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide a minimum of 80 square feet (sq. ft.- unit of measurement) of...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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 F0940
(Tag F0940)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the dietary staff were properly trained on emergency procedures when the cook did not call a Code Red or use the fire extinguisher t...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
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 maintain comfortable temperature levels for three of th...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2023
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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe environment with adequate monitoring a...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 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
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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe environment with adequate monitoring a...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2022
5 deficiencies
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, the facility failed to ensure medications were properly labeled and stored, ...
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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain infection control practices when:
1. A Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 2) did not perform hand hygiene in between med...
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 maintain a sanitary kitchen in accordance with professional standards for food service safety when:
1. Five plastic food stora...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
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 provide a safe, and sanitary environment for the resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0912
(Tag F0912)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to provide a minimum of 80 square feet (sq. ft.- unit of measurement) of...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2022
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(E)
📢 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 F0680
(Tag F0680)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to have a qualified Activity Director on staff. This failure could potentially affect the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of the...
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 fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most California facilities.
- • 39% turnover. Below California's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 22 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
About This Facility
What is Shandin Hills Behavior Therapy Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns SHANDIN HILLS BEHAVIOR THERAPY CENTER 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 Shandin Hills Behavior Therapy Center Staffed?
CMS rates SHANDIN HILLS BEHAVIOR THERAPY CENTER's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 39%, compared to the California average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Shandin Hills Behavior Therapy Center?
State health inspectors documented 22 deficiencies at SHANDIN HILLS BEHAVIOR THERAPY CENTER during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm, 18 with potential for harm, and 3 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.
Who Owns and Operates Shandin Hills Behavior Therapy Center?
SHANDIN HILLS BEHAVIOR THERAPY CENTER 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 78 certified beds and approximately 77 residents (about 99% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in SAN BERNARDINO, California.
How Does Shandin Hills Behavior Therapy Center Compare to Other California Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in California, SHANDIN HILLS BEHAVIOR THERAPY CENTER's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (39%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Shandin Hills Behavior Therapy Center?
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 Shandin Hills Behavior Therapy Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, SHANDIN HILLS BEHAVIOR THERAPY CENTER 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 Shandin Hills Behavior Therapy Center Stick Around?
SHANDIN HILLS BEHAVIOR THERAPY CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 39%, 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 Shandin Hills Behavior Therapy Center Ever Fined?
SHANDIN HILLS BEHAVIOR THERAPY CENTER 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 Shandin Hills Behavior Therapy Center on Any Federal Watch List?
SHANDIN HILLS BEHAVIOR THERAPY 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.