WATSONVILLE NURSING CENTER
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Watsonville Nursing Center has a Trust Grade of D, indicating below-average conditions with notable concerns. Ranked #718 out of 1155 facilities in California, they are in the bottom half, and #4 out of 7 in Santa Cruz County, meaning only three local options are better. The facility's situation is worsening, with issues increasing from 2 in 2023 to 17 in 2024. Staffing is a relative strength, with a rating of 4 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 32%, which is better than the state average. However, they have accumulated $44,488 in fines, suggesting significant compliance problems. Specific incidents include a serious failure to use a mechanical lift properly, leading to a resident falling and sustaining injuries, and another case where residents did not receive critical medications, resulting in serious health consequences. Additionally, there are concerns about food safety practices, as unsanitary conditions in the kitchen were noted. While staffing appears stable, the facility's overall quality and safety issues present significant concerns for families considering this nursing home.
- Trust Score
- D
- In California
- #718/1155
- Safety Record
- Moderate
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 32% turnover. Near California's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- $44,488 in fines. Lower than most California facilities. Relatively clean record.
- Skilled Nurses ○ Average
- Each resident gets 30 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for California. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 42 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (32%)
16 points below California average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near California average (3.1)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
14pts below California avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Above median ($33,413)
Moderate penalties - review what triggered them
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 42 deficiencies on record
Aug 2024
17 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure dignity and privacy was upheld for 1 of 2 sampled Residents (Resident 12) when Resident 12's Suprapubic catheter [SP Ca...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0552
(Tag F0552)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain an informed consent for one of two sampled residents (Resident 44), for the medication lorazepam (medication used for anxiety).
Thi...
Read full inspector narrative →
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** 2. Review of Resident 24's clinical record indicated she was initially admitted on [DATE] and had the diagnoses Dementia (term f...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop a baseline care plan to include instructions ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
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 that proper care and treatment services for ox...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0700
(Tag F0700)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** During an observation on 08/12/24 09:38 a.m., Resident 39 was lying in bed with 1/4 mid bilateral (middle both sides) rails.
Dur...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0745
(Tag F0745)
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 sufficient social services for one out of three sampled re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0757
(Tag F0757)
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 of two sampled residents (Resident 46) was free from unne...
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 medication error rate of 5.88% when two medication errors occurred out of 34 opportunities during the medication administration f...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0802
(Tag F0802)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the dietary staff had the appropriate competencies and skills set to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition services when:
...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Menu Adequacy
(Tag F0803)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure recipe was followed for puree diet.
This failure had the potential to not meet adequate nutritional value and nutriti...
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** 5a.
During a review of Resident 59's admission Record on 08/16/24 at 09:03 a.m., Indicated, Resident 59 was admitted to the fac...
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 expired medications were removed, and medications were labeled and stored according to manufacturer's instructions for...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0804
(Tag F0804)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure the food was prepared by methods that conse...
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
7. During dining observation on 8/12/24 at 12:35 p.m., NA P applied clothing protector to five residents without hand hygiene in between.
During dining observation at 8/12/24 at 12:46 p.m., NA P pick...
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 under sanitary conditions in accordance with professional standards when:
1. Steel trays with black sta...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0912
(Tag F0912)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the following multi-resident rooms provided less than 80 square feet per res...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff followed the Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled Lifting...
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
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
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 routine medications to meet the needs of residents for two ...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2022
14 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0554
(Tag F0554)
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 their policies on medication self-administra...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
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 three of 18 sampled residents (Residents 227, ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0687
(Tag F0687)
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 arrange podiatry (medical specialty concerned with the...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Tube Feeding
(Tag F0693)
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 the appropriate services for two of 18 sample...
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
2. Review of Resident 62's Order Summary Report indicated, Oxygen at 3 LPM via NC continuously.
During an observation on 5/2/2022 at 9:10 a.m., Resident 62 was lying in bed and was receiving oxygen at...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Drug Regimen Review
(Tag F0756)
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 act upon consultant pharmacist reports for two of 18 sampled reside...
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 that medications were stored safely and properly when:
1. Two of two medication room refrigerators in Stations A and B...
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
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility document review, the facility failed to provide food in a form that meets the needs of two residents (Residents 31 and 45) on either mechanical soft...
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
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement their antibiotic stewardship program (program intended to prevent the overuse of antibiotics) for one of 18 sample residents (Res...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0698
(Tag F0698)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure proper communication with the dialysis (a treatment that does some of the things done by healthy kidneys) Center for two of seven re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Menu Adequacy
(Tag F0803)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the planned menu was followed when:
1. Seven of seven residents (Residents 19, 20, 30, 46, 54, 56, and 63) on a renal di...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Room Equipment
(Tag F0908)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure essential kitchen equipment was maintained in a safe operating condition when:
1.The produce refrigerator was not maint...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to store, prepare, and distribute food safely when:
1. G...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0912
(Tag F0912)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the following multi-resident rooms provided less than 80 square feet per res...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2019
9 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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2b. Review of Resident 50's clinical record indicated she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including histor...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Review of Resident 50's clinical record indicated Resident 50 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 ensure necessary treatment and services related to pre...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure psychotropic drugs (drugs that affects the brain activities ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Menu Adequacy
(Tag F0803)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to prepare the menu per recommended recipe for 12 out of 12 residents who were on puree diets when dietary cook B (DC B) did not...
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 maintain proper infection control practices when glucometer (medical device to check residents' blood sugar level) was not san...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0925
(Tag F0925)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
During a concurrent observation and interview with the registered dietitian (RD) on 5/1/19 at 5:40 p.m., four flying insects were observed in the kitchen. The RD confirmed the observation.
During an i...
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 food was stored, prepared, and served under sanitary conditions when:
1. The dishwashing machine was not reaching prop...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(C)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0912
(Tag F0912)
Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the following multi-resident rooms provided less than 80 square feet per res...
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
- • 32% turnover. Below California's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 42 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
- • $44,488 in fines. Higher than 94% of California facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- • Grade D (45/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Watsonville Nursing Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns WATSONVILLE NURSING CENTER an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within California, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.
How is Watsonville Nursing Center Staffed?
CMS rates WATSONVILLE NURSING CENTER's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 32%, compared to the California average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Watsonville Nursing Center?
State health inspectors documented 42 deficiencies at WATSONVILLE NURSING CENTER during 2019 to 2024. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm, 37 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 Watsonville Nursing Center?
WATSONVILLE NURSING CENTER 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 CAMBRIDGE HEALTHCARE SERVICES, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 87 certified beds and approximately 80 residents (about 92% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in WATSONVILLE, California.
How Does Watsonville Nursing Center Compare to Other California Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in California, WATSONVILLE NURSING CENTER's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (32%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Watsonville Nursing 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 Watsonville Nursing Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, WATSONVILLE NURSING 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 3-star overall rating and ranks #100 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 Watsonville Nursing Center Stick Around?
WATSONVILLE NURSING CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 32%, 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 Watsonville Nursing Center Ever Fined?
WATSONVILLE NURSING CENTER has been fined $44,488 across 1 penalty action. The California average is $33,524. 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 Watsonville Nursing Center on Any Federal Watch List?
WATSONVILLE NURSING 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.