Above average — CMS composite of the measures below.
Past the typical resurvey interval — a standard survey could occur at any time
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of July 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at La Paloma Healthcare Center during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with multiple medical conditions was transferred to the hospital after experiencing respiratory distress and later died at the hospital. The MDS assessment was incorrectly coded as a facility death instead of a hospital discharge followed by death, due to staff confusion and human error. Facility staff acknowledged the assessment did not accurately reflect the resident's discharge location and date of death.
A resident with a persistent body rash and multiple medical conditions did not have a dermatology appointment scheduled in a timely manner as ordered by a physician. The responsible staff member delayed acting on the referral and did not document any attempts to schedule the appointment, resulting in a significant gap between the order and the first contact with a specialist.
A pharmacist identified medication regimen irregularities for a resident prescribed Depakote, recommending clarification of its indication and dosage adjustment. The provider declined these recommendations without documenting a clinical rationale, contrary to facility policy. Staff interviews confirmed that required documentation was not completed on the medication review forms, resulting in a deficiency related to medication management and documentation.
A resident with severe cognitive impairment and a history of respiratory illness was not offered the influenza vaccine or provided education about it upon admission during flu season, despite facility policy requiring this. Staff interviews confirmed the process was missed, and no facility-specific declination was obtained, even though the resident had previously refused the vaccine in a hospital.
Inaccurate MDS Coding for Resident Discharged to Hospital
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was accurately coded for a resident who was transferred to the hospital and subsequently died there. The resident, who had a medical history including multiple sclerosis, urinary tract infection, and sepsis, was admitted to the facility and later experienced respiratory distress, prompting a family-requested transfer to the hospital. Documentation showed the resident was transferred to the hospital and later died there. However, the MDS assessment was inaccurately coded as a death in the facility, rather than a discharge to the hospital followed by death at the hospital. Interviews with MDS staff revealed confusion and human error in the coding process. One MDS nurse initially began a discharge assessment, but another nurse changed it to a death assessment based on an incorrect assumption about the resident's place of death. Both MDS staff and the Director of Nursing acknowledged that the assessment did not accurately reflect the resident's discharge location and date of death, resulting in inaccurate data being submitted to CMS.
Failure to Timely Schedule Dermatology Appointment per Physician Order
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to follow physician orders for a resident with a persistent body rash by not scheduling a dermatology appointment in a timely manner. The physician's order, dated 03/26/2025, directed staff to arrange a dermatology consultation due to a rash that was not improving. However, no attempts were made to schedule this appointment until 04/15/2025, nearly three weeks later. Facility policy required the clerk to coordinate and document resident appointments, but there was no documentation of any contact attempts or scheduling activity during this period. The resident's care plan included interventions to manage the rash and prevent complications, but the necessary specialist referral was delayed. The resident involved had a complex medical history, including Parkinson's disease, hypertensive heart disease, multiple psychiatric diagnoses, and moderate cognitive impairment. Observations during the survey noted red, inflamed splotches on the resident's arms. Interviews with staff revealed that the clerk responsible for scheduling appointments was aware of the order but had prioritized other tasks and had not acted on the referral promptly. Both the DON and Administrator confirmed that the expectation was for specialist appointments to be scheduled and documented without delay, but this did not occur in this instance.
Failure to Document Clinical Rationale for Not Following Pharmacist Medication Recommendations
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to follow its own policy regarding the documentation and response to pharmacist recommendations for medication regimen reviews. According to facility policy, the consultant pharmacist is required to review each resident's medication regimen monthly and provide a written report to the attending physician for any identified medication irregularities. The attending physician is then required to document in the medical record that the irregularity has been reviewed and what, if any, action was taken. In the case reviewed, the pharmacist made recommendations regarding the use and dosage of Depakote for a resident with multiple psychiatric diagnoses, including obsessive-compulsive disorder, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and schizoaffective disorder. The pharmacist's reviews noted that the indication for Depakote needed clarification, specifically whether it was being used for seizure control or for behavioral health purposes. The pharmacist also recommended an adjustment to the dosage, as the resident's levels were sub-therapeutic for seizures. In both instances, the provider's only written response was "no," without providing a clinical rationale or further explanation, as required by facility policy. The lack of documentation and rationale for not following the pharmacist's recommendations was confirmed during interviews with facility staff, including the DON, Case Manager, and the nurse practitioner responsible for the resident's care. The nurse practitioner acknowledged that while she had documented the indication for Depakote in her own notes, she had not provided this information on the medication regimen review forms, which would have made it accessible to the pharmacist. The facility's process for handling pharmacist recommendations involved the DON and Case Manager distributing recommendations to providers, but there was no further documentation if the provider chose not to implement the recommendation. This failure to document the clinical rationale for not following the pharmacist's recommendations resulted in noncompliance with facility policy and regulatory requirements.
Failure to Offer Influenza Vaccine and Provide Education Upon Admission
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to offer the influenza vaccine and provide education regarding influenza immunizations to a resident admitted during influenza season. According to facility policy, all residents without medical contraindications should be offered the influenza vaccine annually, and pertinent information about the risks and benefits of the vaccine should be provided. The resident in question had a history of acute respiratory failure with hypoxia and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and was admitted with severe cognitive impairment. The resident's immunization history showed the last influenza vaccination was several years prior, and there was no documentation of a more recent vaccination or a facility-specific declination form. Interviews with facility staff revealed that the resident was not offered the influenza vaccine upon admission, despite the expectation that this should occur during influenza season. The Director of Staff Development and the Director of Nursing both acknowledged that the process was not followed, possibly due to a change in infection prevention personnel at the time of admission. The Case Manager confirmed that the facility's practice is to re-offer immunizations and obtain a facility-specific declination even if a vaccine was refused in another setting, but this was not done for the resident.
What surveyors are citing around you — mapped
All 10 risk areas, ranked with evidence
Repeat citations, what's rising near you, and quality measures — ranked so department heads know exactly where to look first.
Illustrative
What surveyors actually found near you
We read the 233 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 1 immediate-jeopardy cases — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near Oceanside
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pacific Villas Post Acute | 0 mi | — | 0 | 0 |
| Vista Knoll Specialized Care Facility | 0.7 mi | ★★★★★ | 18 | 0 |
| Vista View Post Acute | 2 mi | ★★★★★ | 1 | 0 |
| Bayshire Carlsbad | 2 mi | ★★★★★ | 1 | 0 |
| Santa Fe Post-acute | 3.7 mi | ★★★★★ | 11 | 1 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for La Paloma Healthcare Center.
100% money-back within 48 hours.
Trusted data, never guesswork. Every citation, penalty, rating and Plan of Correction on this page is sourced from public CMS records (latest release July 2026) and official state health department websites.