Pleasant Hill Post Acute: Medical Records Delay - CA
The number belonged to a document management contact, identified in inspection records as DCTM 2. Whether Resident 63 ever called that number, or what happened if he did, is not something the facility appeared to track. What is documented is that he called back.
The second call came on July 30, 2025. This time, the facility's medical records designee, referred to in the inspection report as MRD, got the administrator involved. Together, they emailed a second document management contact, DCTM 1, the same day. DCTM 1 responded the same day, confirmed which specific records the resident was requesting, and clarified the details of the request.
Then came one more day of waiting. On July 31, DCTM 1 mailed Resident 63 a hard copy of all the records he had requested.
Federal inspectors from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reviewed the facility during an August 15, 2025 complaint inspection and cited the delay as a deficiency. The level of harm was listed as minimal, with potential for actual harm. A few residents were affected.
The facility's own policy, revised in May 2023, states that a resident may submit a request for records either orally or in writing, and that a copy will be provided within two business days of that request. The policy does not say "two business days after the second call." It does not say "two business days after the administrator gets involved." It says two business days from the request.
How long passed between Resident 63's first call and the moment DCTM 1 put those records in the mail is not specified in the inspection report. What the report does establish is that the first call did not result in records. It resulted in a phone number.
The MRD, in the account documented by inspectors, described the first call as a situation where the resident had not yet provided enough specificity about what he wanted. That may be true. It also may describe exactly the kind of situation the facility's own policy was designed to handle: a resident makes an oral request, and the facility works with the resident to clarify the format and content, then delivers the records within two business days.
What the inspection record does not show is any evidence that the facility treated the first call as the start of that two-day clock.
Pleasant Hill Post Acute sits at 1625 Oak Park Boulevard in Pleasant Hill, a Contra Costa County suburb roughly 25 miles east of San Francisco. The August inspection was triggered by a complaint, not a routine survey.
The deficiency was tagged under the regulatory provision guaranteeing residents the right to access and obtain copies of their personal and medical records upon request. That right is not contingent on a resident knowing the correct internal contact, or on whether an administrator happens to get looped in on the follow-up call. It belongs to the resident from the moment he asks.
Resident 63 eventually got his records. He got them after calling twice, after the facility's administrator became involved, and after a document management contact clarified what he was asking for, which was the same thing he had been asking for from the beginning.
The inspection report does not say what was in those records, or why Resident 63 needed them, or what the gap between his first call and the arrival of that hard copy cost him in practical terms. It notes only that the potential for actual harm existed, and that a few residents were affected.
He made one phone call asking for something the law says is his. He was handed a number and told to try again.
Full Inspection Report
The details above represent a summary of key findings. View the complete inspection report for Pleasant Hill Post Acute from 2025-08-15 including all violations, facility responses, and corrective action plans.
Download the official CMS inspection PDF from Medicare.gov
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: September 22, 2026 · Our methodology
PLEASANT HILL POST ACUTE in PLEASANT HILL, CA was cited for violations during a health inspection on August 15, 2025.
The number belonged to a document management contact, identified in inspection records as DCTM 2.
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.