Atria Carmichael Oaks.
Atria Carmichael Oaks is Ranked in the top 28% of California memory care with 2 CDSS citations on record; last inspected May 2026.
A large home, reviewed on public record.
Compared to 54 California facilities with a similar number of beds.
RCFE · 36-month window. Higher percentile = better performance on inspection record. Source: California Dept. of Social Services · Community Care Licensing.
among peers to rank.
Rankings based on 36-month CDSS inspection data. Severity and frequency: fewer citations = higher percentile. Repeat rate: lower repeat citation share = higher percentile.
FACILITY WATCH · FREE
Atria Carmichael Oaks has 2 citations on record. Know the moment anything changes.
New findings, complaint investigations, or status changes — emailed to you free.
Where are you in the process? (optional)
Citation history, plotted month by month.
2 deficiencies on record. Each bar is a month with a citation.
Finding distribution
2 total · 36 monthsScope × Severity (CMS A–L)
The rules that apply to this facility.
State requirements with the exact regulation citation, plain-language explanation, and a question to ask on tour. Rules this facility has been cited for appear first.
Plain language
Because a facility markets dementia or Alzheimer's care, state law mandates higher training standards: 12 hours of initial dementia training (6 hours before a staff member works independently with residents, 6 more within the first 4 weeks), 8 hours of annual dementia in-service every year thereafter, and an administrator must include 8 hours of dementia-specific continuing education in every 2-year recertification cycle. Training must cover individualized care plans, behavioral expressions, appropriate supervision, and the facility's dementia care philosophy.
Ask on tour
“Can you show me each direct-care staffer's most recent dementia training certificate, and tell me when their next refresher is due?”
Questions to ask before you visit.
A short pre-tour checklist tailored to Atria Carmichael Oaks's record and state requirements.
The facility has 1 serious citation on file across all inspections — can you provide your corrective-action plan for the cited item, and show families any documentation of remediation steps taken?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
Four complaints are on file with CDSS — were any substantiated, and what remediation did the facility take in response to substantiated findings?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
The February 25, 2026 inspection cited 2 deficiencies — can you provide the deficiency notice and your corrective-action documentation for each cited item?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
Every inspection visit, verbatim.
8 inspections in the public record, most recent first. Click any row to expand — cited rows open automatically.
2026-05-20Complaint InvestigationUnsubstantiatedNo findings
2026-02-25Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
This was a routine inspection that investigated four complaints about care for a resident on hospice: whether staff failed to help with eating, obtain medical care, assist with walking, communicate with family, and properly bill for services. All four allegations were found to be unsubstantiated—investigators reviewed staff interviews, medical records, hospice documentation, and communications with family and found no evidence to support the complaints, though they noted the resident's health declined significantly while at the facility and the resident eventually moved to receive a higher level of care. The facility stopped charging fees on the day the resident moved out in September 2025.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
LPA interviewed care staff in which they stated R1’s appetite began to decline while on hospice care but R1 was still able to eat finger foods and staff continuously offered food. Due to the information gathered LPA finds allegation to be Unsubstantiated. LPA investigated allegation, “Staff did not assist resident with obtaining medical care”. LPA interviewed relevant parties and staff and reviewed resident medical documentation and facility documentation. LPA interviewed relevant party in which they stated R1 was on hospice care but R1 was declining rapidly due to an untreated Urinary Tract Infection(UTI). Relevant Party stated once R1 was moved, new care staff observed signs of an UTI and R1 was treated and began to regain their strength. LPA interviewed care staff in which they stated they did not observe any signs of an UTI. Care staff stated they changed R1 every 2 hours or as needed. LPA interviewed hospice staff in which they stated they had no concerns with R1 receiving proper continence care. Hospice staff stated once R1 did move, new facility staff did report signs of a UTI and antibiotics were provided to R1 to resolve the issue. LPA reviewed hospice documentation, and found no concerns related to an UTI or continence care. LPA reviewed facility documentation, and found no concerns or documentation concerning continence care or an UTI. Due to the information gathered, LPA finds allegation to be Unsubstantiated. LPA investigated allegation, “Staff did not assist resident with ambulating”. LPA interviewed relevant parties and staff and reviewed resident medical documentation and facility documentation. LPA interviewed relevant party in which R1 began needing more caregiver assistance toward the end of their stay and staff would not help R1 out of bed and R1 became bedbound. Relevant party stated that once R1 moved out of the facility and received treatment for an UTI, R1 was no longer bedbound. LPA interviewed care staff in which they stated R1 was ambulatory and walking around facility until August 2025 while on hospice care. Continuation on 9099-C. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 R1’s health was declining and by September 2025 R1 was unsafe to ambulate independently and was bedbound. Caregiver stated they would try to get R1 out of bed but R1 was too weak to be moved into a wheelchair. R1 moved out of the facility on September 17 th . LPA interviewed hospice staff in which they stated facility staff were assisting R1 with ambulating until September 2025 when R1 was needing more assistance to transfer and the facility had limitations with providing a lift assist. Hospice staff stated R1 needed a higher level of care and was moved shortly after. LPA reviewed facility documentation in which resident was ambulating in and out of bed until September 2 nd , and a care conference was scheduled with responsible parties concerning R1’s decline. LPA reviewed hospice documentation, and there was no documentation showing facility staff were not assisting resident with ambulation. Due to the information gathered, LPA finds allegation to be unsubstantiated. LPA investigated allegation, “Staff did not communicate with responsible party regarding resident's care”. LPA interviewed relevant parties and staff and reviewed resident medical documentation and facility documentation. Relevant party stated facility staff would not communicate with R1’s responsible party regarding resident’s care and billing. LPA interviewed care staff and memory care manager in which they stated they spoke to R1’s responsible party several times a week and had a care conference with responsible party prior to R1’s move out. Memory care manager provided LPA emails and text messages to and from R1’s responsible party showing communication. LPA interviewed hospice staff in which they stated a care conference was held on 9/4/25 with facility staff, hospice, and responsible party over the phone concerning R1’s health concerns. Hospice staff stated they scheduled another in-person meeting with responsible party and no one from the facility showed up. Due to the information gathered LPA finds allegation to be Unsubstantiated. Continuation on 9099-C. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 LPA investigated allegation, " Staff are charging resident for care not rendered". LPA interviewed relevant parties and administrator and reviewed documentation. R1 was placed on hospice in June 2025 and their rates increased. Relevant party stated they were charged for services that were not rendered from facility staff and therefore the responsible party should be reimbursed for that. LPA interviewed administrator in which she stated once R1 moved out of the facility the responsible party requested for a refund. Normally facility requires a 30-day notice during the move out process but administrator stopped the fees on 9/17/25, the day R1 moved out. No further refund was issued. LPA interviewed staff in which they stated they provided proper care to R1. LPA interviewed hospice staff in which they stated there were no concerns about neglect but R1 needed to move out to higher level of care. Due to the information gathered LPA finds allegation to be UNSUBSTANTIATED. Although the allegations may have happened or are valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove that the alleged violations occurred, and the findings are unsubstantiated. Exit interview was conducted and copy of report provided.
2025-09-03Complaint InvestigationSubstantiatedType B · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
A complaint investigation found that the facility improperly refused to accept a resident back from the hospital on January 25, 2025, citing safety concerns, even though the resident had been approved for memory care placement and the responsible party had consented to the move. Medical records showed no evidence of self-harm or suicidal thoughts to justify the refusal. The facility violated its own residency agreement requirement to consult with the responsible party before making changes to the resident's care level.
“Based on records reviewed and interviews conducted, the facility did not accept resident (R1) back from the hospital, which poses a potential health, safety, and personal rights risk to residents in care.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Interviews with the Executive Director, Nurse, and Resident Services Coordinator indicated that R1 would be a good fit for the memory care unit at the care home. Hospital Records indicated that they spoke with facility staff on January 24, 2025 indicating that R1 could return to facility after lunch. Hospital was notified by facility on January 24, 2025 that R1 currently resides in assisted living and would be moved to memory care pending discussion with R1’s responsible party. Hospital completed an LIC602A for R1 to go back to the facility in memory care and faxed the form to the facility. R1’s Resident Notes, dated January 24, 2025, indicated that the facility spoke with R1’s responsible party and informed them about memory care placement for R1, and responsible party indicated ok. R1’s Residency Agreement, dated June 26, 2023, indicated that “If we determine that the level of care, we are providing you is not appropriate for your needs, we will implement a change in level of care and consult with you regarding the change. We will also inform your Responsible Person(s) of the need for an implementation of any such change”. Hospital Records indicated that, on January 25, 2025, the facility notified them that they will not be accepting R1 back. R1’s Resident Notes, dated January 25, 2025, indicated that they are not able to take R1 back due to safety issues and concerns. Staff interviews indicated that medical records stated R1 is a high risk of accidental self harm/self neglect if left unsupervised. However, medical records obtained indicated that there was no evidence of any self-harm, suicidal or homicidal ideation, plan or intent. Medical Records indicated that, on January 26, 2025, hospital staff spoke to R1’s responsible party who indicated that they would reach out to the facility to find out why they will not take R1 back as rent was paid until the end of the month. Medical Records indicated that R1’s responsible party assisted the hospital in finding placement for R1. Based on documentation reviewed and interviews conducted, the preponderance of evidence standards have been met. Therefore, the above allegation is found to be SUBSTANTIATED. Per California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8, a deficiency is being cited on the attached 9099-D page. Exit interview conducted. A copy of this report and appeal rights were provided.
2025-07-24Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
A state licensing inspector visited the facility unannounced for the required annual inspection and found the home to be in compliance with all regulations. The inspector verified that bedrooms and bathrooms were properly maintained, medications and hazardous materials were securely locked away, emergency equipment was functional, and the facility had adequate food supplies on hand. No violations were cited.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Angela Hood arrived at the facility unannounced and met with the Executive Director, Kayla Davis, to conduct a Required-1 Year Inspection. LPA conducted an inspection of the care home to ensure compliance with Title 22 regulations. LPA observed five (5) bedrooms in assisted living, one (1) bedroom in memory care, two (2) shower rooms, and common area bathrooms. LPA observed apartments to be properly furnished, with appropriate bedding and lighting. The bathrooms were in sanitary condition, properly maintained, and the hot water temperature was observed to be 112.7 degrees F. LPA checked the kitchen area for the ability to prepare and store food. Care home has required (2) two-day perishable and (7) seven-day non-perishable food supply on hand. LPA observed knives, cleaning products and other toxins to be locked away and inaccessible to residents. LPA observed the outdoor area and perimeter of the care home to be free of clutter and debris and there appeared to be no potential safety hazards to the residents in care. Smoke and carbon monoxide detectors are operational. Fire extinguishers and first aid kits are maintained and ready for emergency use. LPA checked medication storage and found medications to be locked away and inaccessible to the residents. LPA reviewed six (6) resident files and also reviewed six (6) staff files. As a result of this visit, no deficiencies were cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22. Exit interview conducted and copy of report provided.
2024-06-11Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
A routine annual inspection was conducted on June 11, 2024, and the facility was found to be in compliance with all regulations — no violations were cited. The inspector verified that living spaces were properly furnished and maintained, bathrooms were sanitary, hot water temperature was safe, food was stored appropriately, medications and hazardous materials were locked away, and emergency equipment was functional. The outdoor area was free of safety hazards.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Angela Hood arrived at the facility unannounced on 6/11/24 and met with the Executive Director, Kayla Davis, to conduct a Required-1 Year Inspection. LPA conducted an inspection of the care home to ensure compliance with Title 22 regulations. LPA observed four (4) bedrooms in assisted living, one (1) bedroom in memory care, two (2) shower rooms, and common area bathrooms. LPA observed apartments to be properly furnished, with appropriate bedding and lighting. The bathrooms were in sanitary condition, properly maintained, and the hot water temperature was observed to be 109.2 degrees F. LPA checked the kitchen area for the ability to prepare and store food. Care home has required (2) two-day perishable and (7) seven-day non-perishable food supply on hand. LPA observed knives, cleaning products and other toxins to be locked away and inaccessible to residents. LPA observed the outdoor area and perimeter of the care home to be free of clutter and debris and there appeared to be no potential safety hazards to the residents in care. Smoke and carbon monoxide detectors are operational. Fire extinguishers and first aid kits are maintained and ready for emergency use. LPA checked medication storage and found medications to be locked away and inaccessible to the residents. LPA reviewed six (6) resident files and also reviewed six (6) staff files. As a result of this visit, no deficiencies were cited per California Code of Regulations, Title 22. Exit interview conducted and copy of report provided.
2023-09-07Complaint InvestigationNo findings
Plain-language summary
A complaint investigation found no violations at El Camino Gardens regarding allegations of financial abuse, overcharging, and mishandling of a resident's medical form. The facility's records showed that charges for additional supervision resulted from a change in the resident's condition following a safety incident, and that medical forms were updated by the resident's physician as part of routine care coordination. No deficiencies were cited.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Allegation: Staff financially abused a resident. The allegation regarding financial abuse was investigated at the El Camino Gardens location. The findings were delivered on 5/4/2023 and were Unsubstantiated. The Department conducted records review and interviews. On 3/17/2023, the ED indicated that money removed from R1's account was from an auto payment that R1 had signed up for during admission to the facility. Interview with R1 indicated that they had requested a stop to the auto payments, however, facility continued with auto payments. The complaint is also regarding overcharging, which was investigated at the El Camino Gardens location. The findings were delivered on 3/24/2023 and were Unsubstantiated. The Department conducted a records review of R1's admission agreement and invoices itemizing charges from October 2022-March 2023. R1's admission agreement signed 10/27/2022 states "If you become a safety risk to yourself or to others during your residency, we have the right in our sole determination to obtain, at your expense, private duty personnel to provide supervision or assistance until you move from the Community or your safety is no longer at risk." According to interview with ED, the facility began providing R1 with additional supervision ensuring R1's safety after a suicide attempt that occurred on 1/1/2023. R1 was charged due to the change in condition. Allegation: Staff mishandled a resident's medical form. The allegation regarding mishandled medical form was investigated at the El Camino Gardens locations. The findings were delivered on 5/4/2023 and were Unsubstantiated. The Department conducted record review and interviews to investigate this allegation. Interview with R1 indicated that they believe the facility intentionally altered their Physician Report LIC602A in order to increase R1's rent. Interview with ED conducted on 3/17/2023 indicated that a new LIC602A was faxed to the facility by R1's primary care physician (PCP) after ED expressed concerns to R1's PCP regarding R1's medications. Record review indicated that R1 signed an Authorization to Release Health Information form which permits the facility to contact R1's PCP for medical purposes. Records review also indicated that R1 has had five (5) LIC602As since October 2022. Due to the information provided that R1 has never resided at the Carmichael Oaks location and that the allegations have already been investigated at the El Camino Gardens location, the above allegations are found to be UNFOUNDED. A finding that the allegation is unfounded means that the allegation is false, could not have happened, and/or is without a reasonable basis. No deficiencies are being cited. Exit interview conducted and a copy of this report was provided to the facility.
2023-07-11Complaint InvestigationUnsubstantiatedNo findings
2023-06-28Annual Compliance VisitType A · 1 finding
Plain-language summary
During a routine one-year inspection on June 28, 2023, inspectors found the facility clean, safe, and well-maintained, with adequate staffing and supplies; however, they cited a violation because two non-ambulatory residents were housed on the third floor in violation of fire safety clearance requirements, which poses an immediate health and safety risk. Staff and resident files were found to be complete and current, and water temperatures were within required ranges.
“Based on observation and records review, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above in 2 residents, R1 and R3, with non-ambulatory diagnosis resided on the third floor which has a fire clearance for ambulatory only.which poses an immediate health, safety or personal rights risk to persons in care. POC Due Date: 06/28/2023 Plan of Correction 1 2 3 4 Licensee arranged for the two residents to move to an appropriate floor. Licensee will review all residents on the third floor to insure no further violations. This citation is cleared today as correctios were made.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs) Kevin Mknelly and Jaynae Boyles arrived at the facility unannounced on 6/28/23 to conduct a Required-1 Year Inspection utilizing CARE inspection tool. LPA met with the Executive Director and explained the purpose of the visit. LPA toured the interior of the facility together with Executive Director and maintenance director to ensure health and safety of residents in care. Areas toured include but are not limited to: common areas, resident bedrooms as well as the rest of the physical plant. In the areas toured no immediate health, safety, or personal rights violations were observed. The residence was found to be clean, safe, sanitary and in good condition. Water temperature logs were checked and water maintained in required range. Facility has required food supplies. There are appropriate staff present to meet the needs of residents. The licensee was found to have two (2) residents who are non-ambulatory residing on the third floor in violation of the fire clearance. LPA reviewed resident files and staff files. 7 Resident files reviewed are complete and current. 7 Staff files reviewed were complete- training is ongoing. LPA requested licensee submit a copy of liability insurance. As a result of this investigation, LPA finds allegation to be (S) Substantiated - A finding that the complaint is Substantiated means that the allegation is valid because the preponderance of the evidence standard has been met. The following deficiencies were cited on 9099-D, per Title 22 Regulations, Division 6. (A)This poses an immediate Health and Safety risk to clients/residents in care. (B) This poses a potential Health and Safety risk, or personal rights violation, to clients/residents in care.Report reviewed with Kimberly Hagen . Copy of this report and appeal rights provided .
3 older inspections from 2021 are not shown above.
Get the complete record, translated into plain language — emailed to you.
Other facilities in Sacramento County.
Other memory care facilities in Sacramento County with similar care offerings.
Free · Facility Watch
Family reviews
No reviews yet — be the first to share your experience
Other memory care options nearby.
More options in neighboring cities
Licensed memory care in other cities within this county region — useful when your search radius crosses city limits.



