Palomar Heights Post Acute
Escondido, California · CCN 555764
36 surveys since 2011. The first finding at harm level was recorded in 2024.
Data as of , released by CMS on October 8, 2026. Source: CMS Provider Data Catalog.
- Citations on record
- 130
- Surveys
- 36
- Harm or worse
- 1
- Immediate jeopardy
- 0
Findings where a surveyor recorded actual harm to a resident.
Older surveys no longer in CMS’s monthly file or on Care Compare. They are shown here.
The facility
- Certified beds
- 98
- Ownership
- For profit - Limited Liability company
- Chain
- PACS GROUP
- County
- San Diego
- Medicare-certified since
- 2000
CMS ratings
- Overall
- 3
- Health inspection
- 2
- Staffing
- 3
- Quality measures
- 5
CMS’s own Five-Star ratings.
Compared with similar facilities
Since 2021, this facility recorded somewhat fewer weighted findings than its peer group.
Weighted by harm level, against 423 for-profit facilities of 66–99 beds in California.
Last survey on record
May 21, 2026
172 days ago.
Counts surveys with at least one finding. A clean survey leaves no record here, so the real gap may be shorter.
Staffing
| Measure | This facility | Peer median |
|---|---|---|
| Nurse hours per resident day | 4.00 | 4.16 |
| Registered-nurse hours per resident day | 0.64 | — |
| Annual nurse turnover | 42.3% | 37.5% |
As reported by the facility to CMS, beside the peer-group median.
Enforcement
- Fines
- $8,176 across 1 penalty
- Payment denials
- 1
Federal civil money penalties and remedies as CMS currently publishes them. Amounts may still be under appeal.
Severity of recent findings
| Severity | Isolated | Pattern | Widespread |
|---|---|---|---|
| Immediate jeopardy | J— | K— | L— |
| Actual harm | G11.8% | H— | I— |
| No harm, potential for more than minimal | D4378.2% | E1018.2% | F11.8% |
| No harm, potential for minimal | A— | B— | C— |
Most frequently cited here
In CMS’s current monthly file.
- F6894×
Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
- F6843×
Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
- F7613×
Ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
- F8423×
Safeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
- F5782×
Honor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
In the surveyor’s words
From the most serious findings on record at Palomar Heights Post Acute, in the surveyor’s own words.
- Actual harm, isolatedF684Jun 21, 2024
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide care and services according to professional standards of practice to one (Resident 6) of four residents reviewed for quality of care when: 1. The facility did not assess Resident 6's change in condition and, 2. The facility did not notify the physician of Resident 6's change in condition. As a result, the physician was not aware of Resident 6's change of condition and Resident 6 expired. Findings: Resident 6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including congestive heart failure (a condition in which the heart does not pump or fill blood as well as it should) and ischemic cardiomyopathy (damaged heart muscle from lack of blood flow) according to the facility's Admission Record. […]
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, widespreadF812Aug 21, 2026
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure safe and sanitary practices were met in the Food and Nutrition Services Department when eight cutting boards were observed to have deep cuts and discoloration. These failures had the potential to cause widespread foodborne illness in the residents who consume food from the facility's kitchen. The facility census was 93.Findings: A joint kitchen observation on 8/18/26, at 7:54 A.M. was conducted with the Dietary Director (DD). Cutting boards were observed on a rack under a counter. Four white cutting boards had deep cuts and discoloration. A red and yellow cutting boards were pulled and showed deep cuts and discoloration. […]
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, patternF755May 30, 2025
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were administered according to professional standards of practice for one of 24 sampled residents (41) and four unsampled residents (63,80, 191, 36) reviewed for pharmacy services when: 1. Resident 63's Aspirin 81 mg chewable (a prescribed medication as a stroke prophylaxis) was administered over the one hour allotted time frame. 2. The manufacturer's instructions for Fluticasone nasal spray (a nasal spray for allergies) was not followed when the medication was administered to Resident 191. 3. […]
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, patternF761May 30, 2025
Based on observation, interview, record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were stored and labeled according to acceptable standard of practice during an inspection of two of three medication carts, and one of two medication rooms when: 1. Expired insulin (medication to lower blood sugar levels) was stored in a medication cart. 2. Ipratropium/albuterol inhalation (breathing medication) was stored unprotected from light in the medication cart. 3. A box of Ampicillin 3 grams vials was stored inside a drawer in the medication room without the medication label. These failures had the potential for medications to have reduced effectiveness and/or medication misuse. Findings: On [DATE] at 2:34 P.M., an observation and interview was conducted with Licensed Nurse (LN) 35. […]
- No harm, potential for more than minimal, patternF804May 30, 2025
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to cook food in a way to preserve the palatability of the food. As a result, residents may not want to eat the food served to them and have the potential for weight loss. Findings: 1. After the initial resident screening and confidential group interview it was determined there were resident complaints about the food served at the facility. The resident complaints included the food was served cold and did not taste good. During initial tour from 5/27/25 to 5/28/25 the following resident comments regarding food complaints were: On 5/27/25 at 08:28 A.M., during the initial screening Resident 36 stated the food does not taste good and looks cheap. […]
Read 21 findings in full →The most serious and the most recent: 21 of 130 on record.
Every survey on record
FindingsAt actual harm or above
- Aug 21, 2026Standard12 findings
- May 21, 2026Complaint1 finding
- Apr 16, 2026Complaint2 findings
- Feb 17, 2026Complaint2 findings
- May 30, 2025Standard20 findings
- Oct 16, 2024Complaint1 finding
- Oct 9, 2024Complaint2 findings
- Jun 21, 2024Complaint1 finding · 1 harm
Show the 28 earlier surveys
- Mar 15, 2024Complaint1 finding
- Feb 15, 2024Complaint1 finding
- Dec 27, 2023Complaint1 finding
- Nov 27, 2023Complaint1 finding
- Sep 25, 2023Complaint1 finding
- Jul 6, 2023Complaint1 finding
- Apr 21, 2023Complaint3 findings
- Mar 17, 2023Complaint2 findings
- Oct 28, 2022Complaint1 finding
- Mar 17, 2022Standard and complaint10 findings
- Apr 22, 2020Complaint1 finding
- Feb 12, 2020Complaint1 finding
- Nov 7, 2019Standard10 findings
- Nov 8, 2018Standard3 findings
- Sep 27, 2018Complaint1 finding
- Oct 5, 2017Standard2 findings
- Aug 5, 2016Standard3 findings
- Aug 2, 2016Complaint2 findings
- Jul 29, 2016Complaint1 finding
- Aug 26, 2015Complaint2 findings
- Jul 30, 2015Standard6 findings
- Sep 25, 2014Standard7 findings
- Feb 25, 2014—1 finding
- Dec 17, 2013—1 finding
- Oct 24, 2013—12 findings
- Nov 7, 2012—6 findings
- Oct 25, 2012—2 findings
- Dec 1, 2011—6 findings
Surveys that found no deficiencies are not in CMS’s files and do not appear here.
Comparable facilities
The nearest facilities to this one in the same peer group, by weighted findings.
Deficiency Index is independent and is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or approved by CMS, Medicare, or any government agency. About this data · Report a correction