VILLA MARIN
Over 2 years since last inspection. Current conditions may differ from available data.
Villa Marin in San Rafael, California, has a Trust Grade of D, which indicates below-average performance and some concerning issues. It ranks #255 out of 1,155 facilities in California, placing it in the top half statewide, and #3 out of 11 in Marin County, indicating only two local options are better. The facility is currently improving, reducing its reported issues from 9 in 2023 to 1 in 2024. Staffing appears to be a strength, with a 4/5 star rating and an impressive 0% turnover, meaning staff are stable and familiar with the residents. However, the facility has faced significant challenges, including a serious incident where a resident at high risk for falls was left unsupervised and subsequently fell, injuring herself. Additionally, there were critical findings related to sanitation practices in the kitchen, which raised concerns about potential foodborne illnesses. The facility's $7,443 in fines is considered average, indicating some compliance issues but not among the highest in the state. Overall, while there are notable strengths, families should be aware of the facility's past challenges and ongoing improvements.
- Trust Score
- D
- In California
- #255/1155
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- Turnover data not reported for this facility.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $7,443 in fines. Higher than 66% of California facilities. Some compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 128 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
- 26 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
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
The Ugly 26 deficiencies on record
Apr 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 interviews and records review, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse to the California Department of Pub...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
9 deficiencies
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 supervision to one of two residents at risk for fa...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
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 review and revise at least quarterly the comprehensive care plan (a...
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
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility did not follow the procedure when they stored an oxygen tank, which was empty per the gauge, in the Resident's room (one of fifteen resid...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0838
(Tag F0838)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to indicate in its Facility Assessment the use of Agency/Registry (temporary) Licensed Nurses and Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs). This fa...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0909
(Tag F0909)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to monitor bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails for the risk of entrapment by bed rails as part of its regular maintenance program. This fail...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0679
(Tag F0679)
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 program supporting the residents choice of a...
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
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure timely documentation of resident assessments for the risk of entrapment from bed rails and obtaining informed consent prior to insta...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0726
(Tag F0726)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Agency/Registry (staffing agencies that hire and train staff and place nursing professionals in a variety of nursing po...
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 best practices for infection prevention and control when three of three Licensed Nurses (Licensed Nurses D, E and F) di...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 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
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to include a level of supervision on the care plan of one of eight sampled residents (Resident 3) who had fallen repeatedly. This failure coul...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain accurate medical records for one of six sampl...
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 provide written information on Advance Directives to two of eight s...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
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 revise Nursing Plans of Care and attempt new intervent...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
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 attempt new interventions to prevent falls for 2 of 2 ...
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: 1. One cook was able to correctly describe the cool down process for food and 2. The kitchen maintained an air gap for...
Read full inspector narrative →
Feb 2018
10 deficiencies
2 IJ (2 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 maintain sanitary conditions as evidenced by:
1) Dietary Staff put used paper towels on a food prep area.
2) Dietary Staff touc...
Read full inspector narrative →
CRITICAL
(L)
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Garbage Disposal
(Tag F0814)
Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents
⚠️ Facility-wide issue
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to have a trash receptacle located at the hand washing sink which led to the inability of staff to dispose of the used paper towel...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0573
(Tag F0573)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Deficiency Text Not Available
Read full inspector narrative →
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
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a nursing care plan for Resident 4. This had the potential for Resident 4 to not receive needed treatment...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0865
(Tag F0865)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Deficiency Text Not Available
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
QAPI Program
(Tag F0867)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Committee was unaware of the severity of ongoing Dietary sanitation issues, did not determine ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
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:
1. Medications were being administered accord...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, and document review, the facility failed to have an effective Infection Control Program d...
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
2. During an observation on 1/31/18, at 8:42 AM, Staff nurse A was observed using an Omron Wrist Blood Pressure Monitor BP 652 (a wrist blood pressure monitor for home use) to obtain a pulse and blood...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0577
(Tag F0577)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
Based on interview and record review the facility did not ensure that the resident were aware of how to contact the Department about complaints and how to review survey results from the Department. Th...
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
- • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 26 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • Grade D (49/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Villa Marin's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns VILLA MARIN 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 Villa Marin Staffed?
CMS rates VILLA MARIN's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes.
What Have Inspectors Found at Villa Marin?
State health inspectors documented 26 deficiencies at VILLA MARIN during 2018 to 2024. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, 22 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Villa Marin?
VILLA MARIN is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 31 certified beds and approximately 11 residents (about 35% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in SAN RAFAEL, California.
How Does Villa Marin Compare to Other California Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in California, VILLA MARIN's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.2 and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Villa Marin?
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 Villa Marin Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, VILLA MARIN has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 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 Villa Marin Stick Around?
VILLA MARIN has not reported staff turnover data to CMS. Staff turnover matters because consistent caregivers learn residents' individual needs, medications, and preferences. When staff frequently change, this institutional knowledge is lost. Families should ask the facility directly about their staff retention rates and average employee tenure.
Was Villa Marin Ever Fined?
VILLA MARIN has been fined $7,443 across 1 penalty action. This is below the California average of $33,153. 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 Villa Marin on Any Federal Watch List?
VILLA MARIN 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.