Skip to main content
Complaint Investigation

Vineyard Post Acute

March 30, 2026 · Petaluma, CA · 101 Monroe Street
Citations 2
CMS Rating 3/5
Beds 99
Provider ID 555120
Healthcare Facility
Vineyard Post Acute
Petaluma, CA  ·  View full profile →
Inspection Summary

VINEYARD POST ACUTE in PETALUMA, CA — inspection on March 30, 2026.

Found 2 citations. Severity: Standard violations.

Health inspections identify deficiencies that facilities must correct within required timeframes. Violations range from minor documentation issues to serious safety concerns and are subject to follow-up verification.

Advertisement

Inspection Findings

FF0580
Resident Rights Deficiencies

During an interview with the DON on 4/1/26 at 2:42 p.m., the DON stated she checked

of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Wandering and Elopements dated March 2019

shall.notify the resident's legal representative (sponsor).document relevant information in the resident's medical record.A review of the facility's P&P titled, Change in Resident's Condition or Status, dated February 2021 indicated, Our facility promptly notifies the resident.and the resident representative of changes in the resident's medical/mental condition and/or status (e.g. changes in level of care, billing/payments, resident rights, etc.).Unless otherwise instructed by the resident, a nurse will notify the resident's representative when.there is a significant change in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status.Regardless of the resident's current mental or physical condition, a nurse or healthcare provider will inform the resident of any changes in his.medical care or nursing treatments.

555120 03/30/2026

Vineyard Post Acute 101 Monroe Street Petaluma, CA 94954

concurrent observation and interview with Resident 1 on [DATE] at 2:40 p.m., Resident 1 was

1 stated he did not remember if he had his wander alarm on or if the door alarm sounded. Resident 1

lobby, Resident 1 pointed toward the closest baseball field from the facility to indicate where he had gone when he left the facility at night. In order to get to the baseball field, Resident 1 would have had to cross a neighborhood intersection with a three-way stop sign to get to the nearest baseball field.During a concurrent record review and interview with the DON (Director of Nursing) on [DATE] at 3:45 p.m., the DON stated nobody noticed that Resident 1 had left the facility.

The DON also stated she was not sure if Resident 1's care plan was updated after the elopement incident on [DATE].

The DON reviewed Resident 1's care plan regarding his risk of wandering and elopement dated initiated on [DATE] and acknowledged it had not been updated to indicate Resident 1's elopement incident on [DATE].

During an interview with the Activity Director (AD) on [DATE] at 10:29 a.m., the AD stated she was on leave from work which started on [DATE] and the Human Resources Director (HRD) helped with the activity department.

The AD stated she and anyone who was designated to carry out her duties while she was out on leave was responsible for keeping track of the expiration date of the Wanderguard(R).

During an interview with the HRD on [DATE] at 10:50 a.m., the HRD stated she did not recall anyone informing her that Resident 1's Wanderguard(R) had expired.

During an interview with the DON on [DATE] at 2:42 p.m., the DON stated there was a potential for Resident 1 to have fallen and sustained injuries when he eloped.

During an interview with the Maintenance Director on [DATE] at 4:31 p.m., he stated he checked the door alarm system to ensure it was functioning properly every Friday and that he kept a log of the weekly checks. He stated when the door alarm was activated, the alarm would be loud enough for staff to hear and respond to.

The Maintenance Director further stated there were monitors at Nurse Station 1 and Nurse Station 2 that would notify the nurses which door was alarming.

The Maintenance Director stated he was unable to determine how Resident 1 was able to leave the building through the front door without sounding the alarm.A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Wandering and Elopements, dated [DATE], indicated, The facility will identify residents who are at risk of unsafe wandering.If identified as at risk for wandering, elopement.the resident's care plan will include strategies and interventions to maintain the resident's safety.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is an F-tag violation?
F-tags are federal deficiency codes used by CMS to categorize nursing home violations. Each F-tag corresponds to a specific federal regulation (42 CFR Part 483). For example, F607 relates to abuse prevention policies, F880 relates to infection control.
Were these violations corrected?
Facilities must submit plans of correction and implement changes within required timeframes. CMS conducts follow-up inspections to verify corrections. Check the inspection report for specific correction dates and follow-up verification status.
How often do nursing home inspections happen?
CMS conducts unannounced inspections of all Medicare/Medicaid-certified nursing homes at least once per year. Additional inspections may occur based on complaints, facility-reported incidents, or follow-up to verify previous violations were corrected.
What should families do about these violations?
Families should: (1) Review the full inspection report for details, (2) Ask facility administration about specific corrective actions taken, (3) Check if this represents a pattern by reviewing prior inspections, (4) Compare with other facilities in PETALUMA, CA, (5) Report new concerns to state authorities.
Where can I see the full inspection report?
Complete inspection reports are available on Medicare.gov's Care Compare website (www.medicare.gov/care-compare). You can also request copies directly from VINEYARD POST ACUTE or from the state Department of Health. Reports include deficiency codes, facility responses, and correction timelines.


More Reports

Advertisement