Diana's Care Home.
Diana's Care Home is Ranked in the bottom 12% on citation frequency among California peers with 6 CDSS citations on record; last inspected Feb 2025.
A medium home, reviewed on public record.
Compared to 26 California facilities with a similar number of beds.
RCFE memory care · 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 · BETA
Diana's Care Home has 6 citations on record. Know the moment anything changes.
New findings, complaint investigations, or status changes — emailed to you free.
Citation history, plotted month by month.
6 deficiencies on record. Each bar is a month with a citation.
Finding distribution
6 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 Diana's Care Home's record and state requirements.
The facility has 6 serious citations on file across all inspections — can you provide your corrective-action plan for each 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 20, 2024 inspection cited a deficiency under §87705 or §87706 — can you provide your corrective-action plan for the cited dementia-care requirement, and show families documentation of the steps taken to achieve compliance?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
Every inspection visit, verbatim.
6 inspections in the public record, most recent first. Click any row to expand — cited rows open automatically.
2025-02-05Complaint InvestigationUnsubstantiatedNo findings
Plain-language summary
A complaint was investigated after concerns were raised about a resident's rib fractures. Staff, residents, and the facility's nurse practitioner were interviewed, and medical records were reviewed; the resident denied being hurt at the facility, other residents reported no incidents of abuse or mistreatment, and staff denied any falls or injuries occurring there. The Department found insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint and cited no deficiency.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
The Department interviewed residents (R1, R2, R3), staff (S1, S2, S3 and administrator) and reporting party (RP) on 9/12/23. The Nurse Practitioner (NP) was also interviewed on 9/13/23 and medical records were reviewed. R1 stated he needs assistance in transferring. R1 denied ever being abused and falling or getting injured while at the facility. R1 also denied having fracture and stated had only fractured his ribs when shot while serving in the military. The other 2 residents made no disclosures of ever being hurt and mistreated at the facility, having any complaints about the facility staff, and stated never seen any other residents get hurt or mistreated while at the facility. The four facility staff reported they did not know R1 had fractured ribs or how R1 could have sustained the injuries. They denied R1 ever falling at the facility. They stated R1 requires two person assistance during transfers, and that staff would pick R1 up from underneath R1’s armpits. Reporting Party (RP) and Nurse Practitioner (NP) both stated they did not know if the injuries R1 sustained are old or new. NP stated the medical records showed the injuries to be sub-acute but not sure, and stated the injuries could be due to infiltration. Review of medical records showed a right 2nd to 6th rib fractures. Previously, only right 4th and 5th rib fractures were seen. The fractures were noted to be “acute/subacute” fractures. Based on interviews and records review, the allegation is unsubstantiated. A finding that a complaint is unsubstantiated means that although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of the evidence to prove that the alleged violation occurred. No deficiency cited. Exit interview conducted and copy of this report provided.
2024-08-13Complaint InvestigationUnsubstantiatedNo findings
Plain-language summary
A complaint investigation found no violations at this facility. The allegations—that staff retaliated by taking a resident's phone, failed to arrange doctor visits, mishandled belongings, prevented complaint calls, disrespected residents, or neglected their needs—were all unsubstantiated after staff and resident interviews and file review.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Allegation: Staff took resident’s phone as retaliation: Unsubstantiated During the course of investigation LPAs reviewed R1 files indicated that R1 is diagnose with schizo affective. LPAs interviewed 4 staff 4 out of 4 stated that R1 is not medication compliance. R1 stated “My mind is clear, and I don’t want to take any medication”. S1 stated R1 phone is with the facility due to R1 excessive calling the police. LPAs confirmed with R1 family member that they are aware that R1 phone is with the facility staff. LPAs noted that R1 is conserved by San Mateo County Public Guardian, and R1 conservator/ family members asked the facility to keep R1 phone, which are not to retaliation. Therefore, the allegation is unsubstantiated. Allegation: Staff are not ensuring resident is seen by medical doctors: Unsubstantiated During the course of investigation LPAs conducted residents’ files reviewed, and staffs interviewed. After reviewing R1 records of doctor visit/ notes showed R1 doctor seen R1 at the facility once a month, and as needed. S1 and S2 indicated at time R1 doesn’t want to see R1 doctor. Therefore, the allegation is unsubstantiated. Allegation: Staff did not safeguard resident’s personal belongings: Unsubstantiated During the course of investigation LPAs conducted interviewed with R1, and staffs interviewed. R1 stated that some of R1 paper are missing. LPAs reviewed LIC 621 and when asked R1 regrading the missing paper LPAs observed that R1 was not able to explain what exactly what was missing in R1 belonging. LPAs observed R1 pull out papers from different folders indicating that R1 believes that R1 paper is missing. 4 out of 4 staffs indicated that R1 is very specific about R1 belonging, therefore staff is not able to touch R1 belonging without R1 being present. Therefore, the allegation is unsubstantiated. Report continues on LIC 9099c... 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 Allegation: Staff did not allow resident to call CCL to file a complaint: Unsubstantiated During the course of investigation LPAs conducted interviewed with R1, and staffs interviewed. R1 stated that staff didn’t let R1 used the phone when someone is in used of the facility phone. S1 and S2 stated that “we never said no to R1 only when the phone is being used by other residents, so we asked/ explained to R1 that R1 have to wait”. S1 and S2 stated that majority of the time R1 is the one that used the facility phone. Therefore, the allegation is unsubstantiated. Allegation: Staff does not treat resident with dignity and respect: Unsubstantiated During the course of investigation LPAs conducted interviewed residents and staffs. All indicated that staffs treated residents with respect and do not put any residents down. 4 out of 4 staffs states “they have not seen, witness, heard, or themselves disrespect or put any residents down”. R3 stated that “I get treated with respect here”. Therefore, the allegation is unsubstantiated. Allegation: Staff are not meeting residents needs: Unsubstantiated During the course of investigation LPAs conducted residents and staff’s interview. 4 out of 4 staff indicated that we observed residents and look at the needs and service plan to assist residents. Residents indicated that the staff at the facility meet all their needs. Therefore, the allegation is unsubstantiated. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is Unsubstantiated. An exit interview is conducted, and this report provided.
2024-02-20Other VisitType A · 4 findings
Plain-language summary
During a routine annual inspection on February 20, 2024, inspectors found several safety issues: cleaning supplies (Raid, Lysol, Clorox wipes) were left unlocked and unattended in a reception area, pre-poured medication was found in a resident's room, a shed was being used for staff living quarters, and a gate was locked in a way that raised concerns. The facility was otherwise found to be in good physical condition with adequate lighting, temperature control, working smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, and complete staff and resident files, though the facility was required to submit documentation and corrections for the violations found.
“Based on observation, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above by having unlocked pre-poure medication in resident room ##3 which poses an immediate health and safety risk to persons in care. Staff locked medication. POC Due Date: 02/21/2024 Plan of Correction 1 2 3 4 Administrator agreed to keep all medication locked in medication closet at all times. Staff locked medication. DEFICIENCY CLEARED DURING VISIT.”
“Based on observation, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above by having a pad lock on the side yard gate at the facility, which poses an immediate health and safety risk to persons in care. POC Due Date: 02/21/2024 Plan of Correction 1 2 3 4 The Administrator had staff to remove the pad lock. DEFICIENCY CLEARED DURING VISIT. CIVIL PENALTY ASSESSED.”
“Based on observation, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above by having chemicals such as Raid, Lysol and Clorox wipes unlocked at an unattended reception area which poses an immediate health and safety risk to persons in care. POC Due Date: 02/21/2024 Plan of Correction 1 2 3 4 Administrator agreed to lock and keep cabinet locked at all times. DEFICIENCY CLEARED DURING VISIT.”
“Based on observation, the licensee did not comply with the section cited above in having a bed placed in the living room that staff are using for sleeping, which poses/posed a potential health, safety or personal rights risk to persons in care. POC Due Date: 04/03/2024 Plan of Correction 1 2 3 4 Administrator agreed to remove the bed and staff personal belongings from the shed and submit photos to CCL by POC date.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On 2/20/2024 at 9:45am, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Carol Fowler conducted an unannounced 1-Year Required inspection. LPA met with Grace Reano-Aquino, Administrator. The Administrator currently holds a certificate (#6000611740) that expires on 07/07/2025. The facility’s fire clearance was approved for thirty five (35) residents. LPA toured the facility with Administrator including but not limited to bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchen, common area, back and side yard. The facility consists of nineteen (19) total bedrooms, and six (6) bathrooms. No bodies of water observed. A comfortable temperature is maintained at 70 degrees Fahrenheit. LPA observed lighting in all rooms are adequate for the comfort and safety of the residents. The hot water temperature in the residents’ shared bathroom was measured at 119.2 degrees Fahrenheit. Residents’ bathrooms are equipped with grab bars. Smoke detectors and carbon monoxide were in operating condition during visit. Fire extinguisher was last serviced on 03/20/2023. Emergency Disaster Plan was posted. First aid kit was observed to be complete. LPA reviewed seven (7) staff files and nine (9) resident file which were all found to be complete. Continued on LIC809C. 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 Continue from LIC 809 LPA observed the following deficiencies: · At 10:10am, LPA observed Raid, Lysol, Clorox wipes unlocked at an unattended reception area. · At 10:14am, LPA observed pre-poured medication located in resident room #3. · At 10:49am, LPA observed a shed used for staff living quarters. · At 10:54am, LPA observed locked gate. LPA requested the following documents to be submitted to CCLD by 2/29/2023. · Resident Roster · LIC 308 Designation of Administrative Responsibility · LIC 309 Administrative Organization · LIC 500 Personnel Report · LIC 610E Emergency Disaster Plan (9 pages) · Liability Insurance The deficiencies were observed (see LIC809D) and cited from the California Code of Regulation, Failure to submit proof of corrections (POC) by plan of correction due date and/or any repeat deficiencies within a 12-month period may result in civil penalties. *An immediate $500.00 civil penalty will be assessed on today's date for associations.* Exit interview conducted. A copy of the LIC421BG, this report and appeal rights provided
2023-10-13Other VisitIJ · 2 findings
Plain-language summary
During a case management visit related to a prior complaint, inspectors found that unlicensed staff members were checking a resident's blood sugar, which requires licensed personnel. The facility also did not have approval to care for this resident, who has diabetes and cannot manage blood sugar checks independently. These violations were documented and the facility was notified of appeal rights.
“Based on interviews conducted, several unlicensed staff check R1’s blood sugar which poses an immediate threat to the health and safety of clients in care.”
“Based on interviews conducted, the facility admitted R1 who is diabetic but unable to manage own glucose testing. Curently, facility admitted 13 diabetic residents without approved exception”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Licensing Program Analysts (LPAs) Luisa Fontanilla and Alona Gomez conducted a case management visit in connection with the investigation of complaint 15-AS-20230321085000 and met with Grace Aquino. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that several unlicensed staff checked Resident 1 (R1) blood sugar. In addition, the facility does not have an approved exception to admit/retain R1 who has Diabetes and unable to manage own blood sugar checks. Deficiencies are cited per Title 22 California Code of Regulations (refer to Lic 809D) Exit interview was conducted with Grace and Appeal Rights was provided.
2023-10-13Complaint InvestigationUnsubstantiatedNo findings
Plain-language summary
This was a complaint investigation into whether a resident was not receiving appropriate meals. The facility showed a photo of the resident eating a varied diet including salad, beef, and Jell-O, and inspectors found no evidence that the dietary concern actually occurred.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
During the visit, Administrator showed LPAs a photo of R1 eating salad, beef, and Jell-O. However, the facility was unable to provide LPAs a copy of R1's special diet menu. Based on interviews conducted and photo proof presented, the allegation that the resident was not provided appropriate dietary meals is unsubstantiated. Although the allegation may have happened or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the alleged violation did or did not occur, therefore the allegation is unsubstantiated. There is no deficiency noted.
2023-08-23Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
A licensing inspector made an unannounced visit on August 23, 2023, to investigate a priority complaint about the facility's health and safety practices. The inspector toured the building, checked residents' rooms, tested water temperature, and verified that food supplies and safety features were adequate; no violations were found.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On this day, August 23, 2023, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Delmundo arrived unannounced to conduct a health and safety inspection as a result of the Department receiving a Priority 1 complaint (Complaint # 15-AS-20230818151513). LPA met with Grace Aquino, administrator, and informed the reason for visit. LPA toured the facility inside and out including but not limited to living room, kitchen, dining room, shower and bathrooms, side and bakyard. LPA randomly selected 8 residents rooms for inspection. Food supplies were observed sufficient for 2 days of perishable and 7 days of non-perishable. Hot water in one of the common bathrooms was tested and measured at 110.8 degrees Fahrenheit. Hallways and yards were observed free of obstructions. Laundry room was observed locked. Thirty four (34) residents were present during inspection, 17 of which were in the dining room playing bingo, 5 watching tv in the living room and the rest were in their rooms. One of the resident was out in the day program. No deficiency observed on this day. Exit interview conducted, and copy of this report provided.
2 older inspections from 2023 are not shown in the free view.
2 older inspections from 2023 are not shown in the free view.
Other facilities in Alameda County.
Other memory care facilities in Alameda County with similar care offerings.
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.