MASONIC HOME
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Masonic Home in Union City, California, has received a Trust Grade of B, which means it is a good choice overall, falling in the 70-79 range. It ranks #398 out of 1155 facilities in California, placing it in the top half, and #37 out of 69 in Alameda County, indicating that only a few local options are better. However, the facility is experiencing a worsening trend, with issues increasing from 1 in 2024 to 6 in 2025. Staffing is a strength, earning a 5-star rating with a turnover rate of 30%, which is lower than the state average, and they have more RN coverage than 90% of state facilities, ensuring better oversight. On the downside, there were concerns about food quality and safety, with residents reporting bland meals that could lead to decreased calorie intake, and issues with food storage practices that might cause contamination risks. Additionally, the facility has accumulated $3,162 in fines, which is average compared to others in California, pointing to some compliance problems. While Masonic Home has strong staffing and good overall ratings, families should be aware of the recent concerns regarding food service and safety.
- Trust Score
- B
- In California
- #398/1155
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 30% turnover. Near California's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $3,162 in fines. Higher than 93% of California facilities. Major compliance failures.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 61 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
- 15 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (30%)
18 points below California average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, fire safety.
The Bad
16pts below California avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
The Ugly 15 deficiencies on record
Feb 2025
6 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
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 skin and wound care policy and procedure when R...
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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure safe medication storage practices when expired medications in an emergency drug kit (a collection of medications used ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Garbage Disposal
(Tag F0814)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure garbage and refuse storage area was maintained in a sanitary condition when the dumpster's surrounding area was littere...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Safe Environment
(Tag F0921)
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 a safe, sanitary, and comfortable homelike environment when...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure storage of food under sanitary conditions when...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0919
(Tag F0919)
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 three of 71 sampled residents' call lights wer...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 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
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three sampled residents (Resident 1), received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of care when;
Fac...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2023
3 deficiencies
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 failed to prevent 13.51% medication error rate when there were five medication pass errors out of 37 medication pass observations. Resi...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure to provide palatable food when food was served ...
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 and prepare food in accordance with professional standards for safety when:
1.
Dietary Staff 2 (DS2) scooped ice withou...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2019
5 deficiencies
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to develop baseline care plans within the first 48 hours of admission which provided instructions for the provision of effective and person-ce...
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive care plan for one of 22 (Resident 40) sampled residents when Resident 40 did not have a care plan to ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, for one of 22 sampled residents (Resident 32), the facility failed to ensure supervision to prevent accidents when Resident 32's wander guard device...
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 observe infection control practices when Registered Nurse (RN 1) and Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) handled Resident 63'...
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 follow proper sanitation and food storage practices when:
a. A fluffy, gray material was observed on the filters and filter ...
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.
- • $3,162 in fines. Lower than most California facilities. Relatively clean record.
- • 30% turnover. Below California's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 15 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Masonic Home's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns MASONIC HOME an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered 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 Masonic Home Staffed?
CMS rates MASONIC HOME's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 30%, compared to the California average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Masonic Home?
State health inspectors documented 15 deficiencies at MASONIC HOME during 2019 to 2025. These included: 15 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Masonic Home?
MASONIC HOME 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 125 certified beds and approximately 75 residents (about 60% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in UNION CITY, California.
How Does Masonic Home Compare to Other California Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in California, MASONIC HOME's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (30%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (5 stars) is much above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Masonic Home?
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 Masonic Home Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, MASONIC HOME 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 4-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 Masonic Home Stick Around?
MASONIC HOME has a staff turnover rate of 30%, 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 Masonic Home Ever Fined?
MASONIC HOME has been fined $3,162 across 2 penalty actions. 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 Masonic Home on Any Federal Watch List?
MASONIC HOME 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.