Murrieta Gardens.
Murrieta Gardens is Ranked in the top 23% of California memory care with 1 CDSS citation on record; last inspected Apr 2026.

A large home, reviewed on public record.

© Google Street View
Compared to 123 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
Murrieta Gardens has 1 citation 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.
1 deficiency on record. Each bar is a month with a citation.
Finding distribution
1 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 Murrieta Gardens's record and state requirements.
One complaint is on file with CDSS — was it substantiated, and what remediation did the facility take in response to any substantiated findings?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
The facility holds 126 licensed beds but does not carry a formal memory-care designation in CDSS records — what specific protocols are in place to support residents with cognitive impairment, and can you provide written documentation of any dementia-care program the facility follows?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
The March 3, 2026 inspection resulted in zero deficiencies — can you provide families with a copy of that inspection report to verify the findings?
Ask the operator on tour. Take notes and compare answers across facilities you visit.
Every inspection visit, verbatim.
4 inspections in the public record, most recent first. Click any row to expand — cited rows open automatically.
2026-04-28Complaint InvestigationSubstantiatedType B · 1 finding
“Based on interviews and records conducted, the facility mismanaged R1's medications. This poses a potential health risk to residents in care.”
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
Administrator Carter was interviewed and reported that medication technicians/wellness director are trained and required to contact a resident’s responsible person approximately 7-14 days in advance to request a medication refill prior to a medication depleting to allow sufficient time for the refill to be delivered to the facility promptly. Administrator was unable to locate any record to prove that R1’s responsible person was contacted to request a refill for M1 on or around February of 2026. LPA reviewed R1’s physician’s report dated 12/10/2024 documenting R1 exhibits memory loss and requires medication management. LPA reviewed R1’s Resident Service Plan listing their date of admission as 02/27/2025 also noting R1 requires medication management. LPA reviewed R1’s physician’s order for M1 dated 12/15/2025 and M2 dated 01/20/2026. LPA reviewed R1’s Centrally Stored Medication and Destruction Record (CSMDR) documenting the facility received 30 tablets of M1 on 01/13/2026 followed by 90 tablets on 03/13/2026. However, the CSMDR does not note the facility received a refill for M1 on or before 02/12/2026. The CSDMR also notes the facility received 90 tablets of R1’s M2 on 01/20/2026. LPA reviewed R1’s MAR for February of 2026 which documents R1 received M1 and M2 as prescribed during the entire month. LPA also reviewed R1’s MAR for March of 2026 and noted M1 and M2 have 14 dates where the staff initials are circled in the section that is used to document whether the medications were administered. Administrator Carter explained that circled staff initials in the MAR indicate the medication was not given due to reasons such as the resident being out of the facility or the facility awaiting medication delivery. LPA reviewed the R1’s MAR exception which documents the reason for not dispensing the medication on the 14 dates as, “Awaiting Delivery”. Administrator Carter reported, “Awaiting Delivery” refers to facility staff waiting for medications to be delivered to the facility. However, the CSMDR notes the facility received 90 tablets of R1’s M2 on 01/20/2026 which did not require to be refilled until 04/20/2026. LPA also reviewed a photograph dated 04/18/2026 of R1’s M2 that contained at least 20 tablets in the medication bottle. There is no record or report that R1 received physician orders to discontinue M1 or M2 during the time the MAR for March of 2026 notes R1 did not receive the medication. Based on interviews conducted and records reviewed, the preponderance of evidence standard has been met, therefore the above allegation is found to be substantiated. California Code of Regulations (Title 22, Division 6, Chapter 8), are being cited on the attached LIC 9099 D. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of this report, Confidential Names list (LIC 811) and Appeal Rights were reviewed and provided to Administrator Carter.
2026-03-30Complaint InvestigationUnsubstantiatedNo findings
Plain-language summary
A complaint alleged that staff failed to prevent a resident from sustaining a rib fracture while in care. An investigation found that the rib fractures shown on an x-ray were actually from a car accident in the 1990s and were already healed; the radiologist had reviewed older imaging and confirmed the fractures were present at that earlier time but were not previously noted in the records. The complaint was deemed unsubstantiated.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
(Continuation from LIC9099) Administrator reported that the hospital staff reviewing the x-ray elevated their concerns when it was later discovered that prior chest x-rays showed the rib fractures. A records review was conducted of the facility’s Unusual Incident Reports. A report dated 6/29/2025 documented an unwitnessed fall in which R1 was found seated on the floor, at the base of the couch. She was transported to the hospital for evaluation, where it was confirmed that no injuries were sustained. A report dated 7/20/2025 documented that R1 had exhibited signs of pneumonia and was transported to the hospital by their responsible. This incident is the direct subject of the current investigation. Other than these two reports, no additional incidents involving R1 have been reported. Interview with R1 report that R1 slipped off the couch earlier that year but does not recall sustaining any injuries. An interview with R1 and their responsible person report that R1 was in a major car accident in the 1990’s causing R1 to sustain multiple rib fractures. R1 responsible person reports that the prior fracture was still shown in the x-ray, but the area of the fractures is healed. Interview with R1 confirmed that there is no residing pain from the prior rib fractures and does not recall the last time when R1 experienced pain in that area. Attempts to interview Witness #1 (W1) were unsuccessful. Additional information received document “Per provider, radiologist re-reviewed imaging from previous visit and the rib fractures were present at the time, just didn’t get notated. Plan for DC back to Murrieta Gardens”. Based on interviews and records review, the allegation of “staff did not prevent a resident from sustaining a fracture while in care” is deemed unsubstantiated. A finding that the complaint is UNSUBSTANTIATED means 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 allegations are unsubstantiated at this time. An exit interview was conducted where this report was discussed and provided to Administrator.
2026-03-03Annual Compliance VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
During a routine inspection, investigators looked into an incident where one resident hit another resident, causing a cut on the second resident's forehead that required a hospital visit when a previous stitch was removed. Staff reported they intervened and separated the residents, and interviews with staff and a witness supported that staff responded to the situation, but there was not enough evidence to prove whether staff failed to prevent the incident from happening. The allegation could not be confirmed or ruled out.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
(Continuation from LIC9099) Interview with S2 reported that S2 was standing near the entryway of the main room when S2 overheard a loud slapping noise. S2 reportedly rushed towards the noise and observed R2 with their hand raised and began hitting R1 with an open hand. S2 reported observing S1 separating the resident and S2 assisted with redirecting R1 away from R2. After the residents were separated, staff reported that S2 contacted emergency personnel as R1’s left side of the forehead had light bleeding. Staff report that R1 had prior stitching due to an unrelated incident. As a result of the physical altercation, a stitch on R1’s forehead was removed. Staff interviews reported that S2 contacted emergency personnel. Upon emergency personnel’s arrival, R1 was transported to the hospital due to the stitch being removed from R1’s head. Interviews with staff and Witness #1 (W1) reported that R2 was not observed to have sustained any injuries. Staff interviews reported that R2 does not have a history being physically or verbally aggressive towards residents and does not require constant care and supervision. LPA attempted to interview R1 and R2 but due to cognitive abilities, the interview attempts were unsuccessful. A review of R2’s care plan details that R2 requires checks at more frequent interval and may exhibit physically or verbally aggressive behaviors. A review of R1’s care plan detailed that R1 requires checks a regular intervals and has a history of aggressive behaviors in prior facilities. Records review conducted for R1 and R2 does not report either residents requiring constant care and supervision. Interview with Administrator explained that regular checks are conducted every two hours and frequent checks are conducted every hour. LPA was informed that the facility does not maintain surveillance cameras in that location of the building. Due to insufficient evidence, the allegation of staff did not prevent one resident from hitting another resident is deemed UNSUBSTANTIATED. A finding that the complaint is unsubstantiated means although the allegation may have happened and/or is valid, there is not a preponderance of evidence to prove the allegation did or did not occur. An exit interview was conducted, and a copy of this report was provided to Administrator Kylee Carter.
2025-10-06Other VisitNo findings
Plain-language summary
On October 6, 2025, state inspectors conducted a routine annual inspection and found the facility operating properly within its licensed capacity for 126 residents. The inspectors observed that the kitchen, bathrooms, bedrooms, and common areas met health and safety standards, food was safely stored, fire safety equipment was functional, and staff maintained proper hygiene practices. The facility was also found to organize regular activities and maintain adequate staffing documentation.
Read raw inspector notesClose inspector notes
On 10/6/2025, Licensing Program Analyst (LPA) Valerie Flores conducted an unannounced 1-year required visit. LPA met with Administrator, Kylee Carter, and explained to Kylee the purpose of the visit. Administrator Kylee granted LPA entry to the memory care facility. During the visit, LPA conducted a tour of the facility and observed the following: The facility is a two-story structure which consist of (61) sixty-one units. The facility is licensed for (126) one hundred and twenty-six non-ambulatory residents to which (20) twenty may be bedridden on the first level only. The Licensee was observed to be operating with their scope. LPA observed kitchen to be clean and free of rubbish. Food is stored in a safe and healthful manner by ensuring all food items were properly dated and free of mold. Utensils and dishware are sufficient for the approved capacity. LPA observed food supply met the requirement for a (2) two-day supply of perishable food and (7) seven-day supply of non-perishable food. Sharps are secured in the locked kitchen and inaccessible to the residents. During the visit, LPA observed food staff preparing food. All persons engaging in food preparation and service were observed to maintain personal hygiene and proper sanitation practices to protect the food from contamination. Indoor/outdoor passageways were observed to be free of obstruction. Fire extinguisher is charged and up to date. Resident bedrooms were observed to be equipped with the required bedding, furniture, seating, and functional lighting. Resident bathrooms were observed to have working toilet, sinks, and were equipped with a grab bar in the shower and toilet areas.LPA observed laundry room to be clean and inaccessible to residents as it housed cleaning supplies. Washing machine and dryer were observed to be in good repair. LPA observed sufficient amount of extra towels and linen located in the laundry room. (Continue to 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 (Continuation from LIC809C...) The facility exits were equipped with permitted egress devices to ensure resident safety. All outdoor pathways were free of obstructions. No bodies of water were observed. Licensee promotes socialization by organizing (3) three or more planned activities to encourage physical activities, interactive games between residents, and host socializing events. The facility maintains sufficient space to host these interactive planned activities. A fire alarm service test report was conducted on 04/23/2025 by Murrieta Fire and Rescue. The report indicated the fire alarm system to be in good repair. Per Administrator, there are no firearms and/or ammunition on the premises. LPA conducted records review of (7) seven residents. Resident records included but not limited to preplacement appraisals, assessments, medical and dental, needs and services plans, physician reports, personal rights, signed telecommunication device notifications, property and valuables, and admission agreements. LPA conducted (3) three staff records. Staff records included but not limited to valid CPR/First-aid Certification, health screenings, valid TB test, criminal record clearance, personnel record. job application, and training's pertaining to job functions. An exit interview was conducted and a copy of this report will be provided to Administrator, Kylee Carter.
Other facilities in Riverside County.
Other memory care facilities in Riverside County with similar care offerings.
Free · Tour Prep
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.
