Shasta View Care Center: PPE Failures in Isolation - CA
Inspectors visited the facility on August 27, 2025, following a complaint. What they found was straightforward and, given the timeline, hard to explain away.
The nursing assistant, identified in inspection records only as CNA A, was supposed to pull a gown, mask, eye protection, and gloves from supply drawers outside the resident's room before entering. She didn't. She was supposed to perform hand hygiene. She didn't do that either. When she moved from one resident to the next inside the same room, she was supposed to change her gown and gloves entirely. She kept wearing the same ones.
When inspectors asked her about it, CNA A confirmed everything. She said she didn't know she was supposed to put on a gown, gloves, eye protection, and mask before entering the room. She confirmed she skipped hand hygiene. On why she didn't change her protective equipment between residents, she said, simply: "I didn't know I needed to."
The problem is that she had been told. The facility's infection preventionist held an in-service on August 21 — six days before the inspection — covering exactly these requirements: N95 masking etiquette, hand hygiene, and PPE protocols. A second session followed on August 25, two days before inspectors arrived. CNA A confirmed she attended the August 21 training.
The infection preventionist laid out the protocol in detail during her interview with inspectors. Staff were required to gear up fully before entering any room under contact and droplet precautions: gown, mask, eye protection, gloves. On the way out, they were required to remove all of it in the correct sequence, dispose of it, leave the room, and then perform hand hygiene. A new N95 mask was required every single time a staff member exited a room, not reused across entries.
The infection preventionist confirmed CNA A did not follow any of that. She also confirmed a second employee, identified only as AA, failed to comply as well, though the inspection report contains limited detail on what AA specifically did or didn't do.
The administrator, interviewed the same morning, did not minimize it. She said she was not happy with the staff who ignored the protocols, and she acknowledged the timing made it worse: the infection preventionist had just finished running those in-services. The training had happened. The information had been delivered. And then, days later, it wasn't applied.
The violation was cited at a level of minimal harm or potential for actual harm, with some residents affected. That classification reflects what inspectors could document, not necessarily the full range of what the lapse made possible. Isolation precautions exist because something in that room required them. The inspection report does not identify the nature of the precautions or the residents' conditions, but contact and droplet protocols are typically used when residents carry infections transmissible through physical contact or respiratory droplets. Moving between two residents in that room, in the same gloves and gown, without washing hands, is the kind of break in protocol that infection control training exists to prevent.
What the record shows is a facility that identified the gap, organized training, brought staff in twice within a week, and still watched a nursing assistant walk into an isolation room and skip the basics. The administrator knew it was a problem. The infection preventionist knew it was a problem. CNA A, when asked directly, confirmed she had been in the room, had moved between residents, and had not changed her protective equipment.
She said she didn't know she needed to. She had just been told.
Full Inspection Report
The details above represent a summary of key findings. View the complete inspection report for Shasta View Care Center from 2025-08-27 including all violations, facility responses, and corrective action plans.
Additional Resources
Data source: This article is based on inspection data downloaded directly from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) via Medicare.gov. CMS releases inspection reports in bulk; we publish the findings as documented by state surveyors in the official Form CMS-2567 Statement of Deficiencies.
Plan of correction: The CMS report we receive does not include the facility's plan of correction. Facilities submit plans of correction separately to state survey agencies and those responses may not be reflected in CMS data at the time of publication. The absence of a plan of correction in our data does not mean one was not filed. Readers who want information about corrective steps taken are encouraged to contact the facility directly or their state survey agency.
Corrections may have occurred: Inspection reports reflect conditions observed on the date of the survey. Facilities may have implemented corrections, staffing changes, additional training, or other remediation since the report was issued. We report what CMS provides and encourage readers to seek current information from the facility.
Editorial process: Inspection findings are extracted from CMS source documents and synthesized using AI, reviewed for factual accuracy against the original report by our editorial team.
Professional review: All content reviewed by Christopher F. Nesbitt, Sr., NH EMT & BU-trained Paralegal.
Last verified: October 7, 2026 · Our methodology
SHASTA VIEW CARE CENTER in RED BLUFF, CA was cited for violations during a health inspection on August 27, 2025.
Inspectors visited the facility on August 27, 2025, following a complaint.
Health inspections identify deficiencies that facilities must correct. Violations range from minor documentation issues to serious safety concerns. Review the full report below for specific details and facility response.