Bayshire Rancho Mirage
Rancho Mirage, CA • 4.61 HPRD • 40 residents • For Profit • Entity: Bayshire Senior CommunitiesRancho Mirage, CA • 4.61 HPRD • 40 residentsFor Profit • Bayshire Senior Communities
Bayshire Rancho Mirage reported 4.61 HPRD (≈ 5.2 residents per total staff) in Q3 2025. This level is below its case-mix (acuity) 5.43 HPRD and in the top 26% of nursing homes in California (4.36 HPRD).
Put another way… On a typical 30-bed floor at Bayshire Rancho Mirage you’d see about 5.8 staff, including 3.0 nurse aides. For the entire 40-resident facility, that’s about 7.7 total staff, including 4.0 nurse aides.
Case-mix is a CMS metric based on resident acuity.
Reported HPRD (4.61) is 85.0% of case-mix (5.43).
Direct staff excludes Admin/DON. State minimums via MACPAC (2022) may reflect calculated HPRD equivalents. Direct staff excludes Admin/DON. State minimums via MACPAC may reflect calculated HPRD equivalents.
Request custom PBJ analysis for litigation and investigative reporting.Request custom PBJ analysis.
Methodology
This dashboard uses CMS Payroll-Based Journal (PBJ) data (2017–2025), along with other public datasets (Provider Information, Affiliated Entity). State staffing standards via MACPAC (2022).
Metrics
- Hours Per Resident Day (HPRD): Total staff hours ÷ average residents. Example: 350 hours for 100 residents = 3.5 HPRD.
- Direct Care (excl. Admin, DON): Hours per resident day for direct care staff only (RN, LPN, CNA, NAtrn, MedAide), excluding administrative and supervisory roles.
- Contract Staff %: Share of hours provided by contract staff.
- Census: Average number of residents during the period.
Note: Some states set minimums (e.g., NJ, CA, NY at 3.5 HPRD); a federal 3.48 minimum was recently overturned (2025). A 2001 federal study linked 4.1 HPRD to better outcomes in that study. Staffing needs vary by resident acuity (case-mix), day, and shift. Estimates on PBJ Takeaway assume roughly 60% of staff are CNAs.
Data transparency
The PBJ Dashboard pulls directly from CMS data and is carefully vetted for accuracy. Still, sometimes a bug sneaks into the jelly. That could mean: a systemic CMS data reporting issue (e.g., Q2 2017 contract staffing, missing data in 2020 due to COVID) or there could be a coding error on our part. If you spot something that looks off, please let me know via the contact form so I can set things right.