How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Arbol Healthcare Center of Santa Rosa
300 Fountaingrove Parkway, Santa Rosa, CA 95403 (opens Google Maps) · Sonoma County · (707) 566-8600· 45 certified beds · avg 34 residents/day · certified since Jan 2, 2007 · Medicare only — not Medicaid certified
Certified for Medicare only. Medicare pays for short rehabilitation stays, not for long-term care — and this facility cannot bill Medicaid, which is what most families rely on for a long stay. Ask what a long-term stay here would cost and how it would be paid for. Who pays for nursing home care →
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Nov 18, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.86
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 5/5 · how star ratings work →
The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and quality measures from resident assessments and claims.
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 36 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not make sure a transfer or discharge met the resident's needs and preferences, or did not properly prepare the resident to leave safely. · from a complaint F-0627
The facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. F-0550
The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. F-0552
View all 36 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 9, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure a transfer or discharge met the resident's needs and preferences, or did not properly prepare the resident to leave safely. · from a complaint · F-0627 |
| Nov 18, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights. · F-0550 |
| Nov 18, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. · F-0552 |
| Nov 18, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. · F-0578 |
| Nov 18, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not give residents proper notice about what Medicare or Medicaid covers, or about charges the resident might owe for services that aren't covered. · F-0582 |
| Nov 18, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Nov 18, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658 |
| Nov 18, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. · F-0761 |
| Nov 18, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812 |
| Nov 18, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880 |
| Feb 10, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not have a registered nurse on duty at least 8 hours a day, or did not have a registered nurse serving full-time as director of nursing. · from a complaint · F-0727 |
| Feb 10, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not conduct and document a facility-wide assessment of what staff, supplies, and resources it needs to care for its residents properly — during everyday operations, nights, weekends, and emergencies. · from a complaint · F-0838 |
| Feb 10, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Feb 10, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · from a complaint · F-0880 |
| Jul 25, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · from a complaint · F-0656 |
| Jun 13, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care. · from a complaint · F-0578 |
| May 30, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · from a complaint · F-0812 |
| Jan 19, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint · F-0609 |
| Oct 27, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service. · F-0802 |
| Oct 27, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812 |
| Oct 27, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880 |
| Oct 27, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time. · F-0759 |
| Oct 27, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility's menus did not meet residents' nutritional needs, or were not prepared in advance, followed as written, kept up to date, or reviewed by a dietician. · F-0803 |
| Oct 27, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' right to make their own choices about their daily lives, such as when to wake up, what to eat, or how to spend their time. · from a complaint · F-0561 |
| Oct 27, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684 |
| Dec 6, 2021 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly. · F-0585 |
| Dec 6, 2021 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · F-0726 |
| Dec 6, 2021 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812 |
| Dec 6, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684 |
| Dec 6, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock. · F-0761 |
| Dec 6, 2021 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · F-0880 |
| Dec 6, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate. · F-0554 |
| Dec 6, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not give residents (and their representatives and the ombudsman, a state advocate for residents) proper advance notice before a transfer or discharge, including information about their right to appeal. · F-0623 |
| Dec 6, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not give the resident or their representative written notice of how long it would hold the resident's bed during a hospital stay or approved leave. · F-0625 |
| Dec 6, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines. · F-0656 |
| Dec 6, 2021 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required. · F-0657 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (7 → 9).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2021
All citations: 11
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2023
All citations: 7
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 4
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 14
Serious citations (G–L): 0
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | 11 | 0 | F |
| 2023 | 7 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 4 | 0 | F |
| 2025 | 14 | 0 | E |
Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.
Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
What these staffing numbers mean →
This facilityCalifornia averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 4.86
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 1.08
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 4.44
California average: 3.90
U.S. average: 3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | California avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 4.86 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 18% in California; top 16% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 1.08 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 9% in California; top 13% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.44 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 16% in California; top 13% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 1.09 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 7% in California; top 5% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 50.0 | 36.7 | 45.8 | bottom 15% in California; bottom 38% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 41.7 | 38.1 | 42.9 | bottom 41% in California; top 50% in the U.S. |
Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 5.62, RN 1.25, weekend 5.14.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (5.62 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 4/5.
Quality measures: assessments & claims
Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.
Quality measures rating: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Arbol Healthcare Center of Santa Rosa. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Calculate a stay from a quote you receive
Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.
Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.
Before you compare prices
- Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
- Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
- Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
Who owns this facility
How to read ownership records →
Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
All 1 owning or managing party CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "Before a resident is discharged or transferred, how do you make sure the new place can actually meet their needs?"
- "Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
- "How do you explain health changes and treatment options to residents and their families?"
- "How do you record and honor each resident's treatment wishes and advance directives, and how do staff know about them?"
- "Before any service that isn't covered by Medicare or Medicaid, how will you notify us and get our agreement?"
- "Can we tour the resident rooms, bathrooms, and common areas today, including areas not on the usual tour route?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 50% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (12 closest of 16 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blue Oak Post-Acute | 2.7 mi | Santa Rosa, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Park View Post Acute | 3.6 mi | Santa Rosa, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Northvine Postacute Care | 3.7 mi | Santa Rosa, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Santa Rosa Post Acute | 4.0 mi | Santa Rosa, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Summerfield Health Care Center | 4.3 mi | Santa Rosa, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Spring Lake Village | 5.0 mi | Santa Rosa, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Apple Valley Post-Acute Rehab | 7.6 mi | Sebastopol, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Healdsburg Hospital D/P SNF | 12.6 mi | Healdsburg, CA | ★★★★☆ | 5/5 | |
| Vineyard Post Acute | 16.1 mi | Petaluma, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| North Bay Post Acute | 17.8 mi | Petaluma, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Hillcrest Post Acute | 18.0 mi | Petaluma, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Petaluma Post-Acute Rehabilitation | 18.0 mi | Petaluma, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Sonoma, CA — 18 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Broadway Villa Post Acute — Sonoma, CA · overall 5/5
- Cloverdale Healthcare Center — Cloverdale, CA · overall 5/5
Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555836.