CaliforniaSanta Barbara

Buena Vista Care Center

160 South Patterson Avenue, Santa Barbara, CA 93111 · Santa Barbara County · 150 certified beds · avg 120 residents/day · certified since Nov 20, 1989

Part of chain: COVENANT CARE (12 facilities, chain avg rating 2.8★)

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
2
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.45
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5

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 self-reported quality measures.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, one-off · Oct 3, 2025 · F-0689 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

Severity (J): Inspectors found a situation that put a resident's life or safety in immediate danger, affecting one or a few residents. The facility must fix it immediately — these citations often come with large fines.

Corrected: Dec 17, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Oct 20, 2025 · F-0656 · triggered by a complaint

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.

Why it matters: Without a complete, working care plan, important needs can slip through the cracks and no one is accountable for results.

Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Dec 15, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (32)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Apr 10, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Apr 10, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Apr 10, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not prepare and serve food in a form that meets each resident's individual needs — for example, chopped, pureed, or softened food for residents with chewing or swallowing problems.
Apr 10, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Jan 14, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Oct 20, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe 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
Oct 3, 2025▲ J · Immediate jeopardy, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Oct 3, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. · from a complaint
Aug 20, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate pain management for a resident who needed it. · from a complaint
May 2, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint
Mar 20, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint
Mar 7, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Mar 7, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · from a complaint
Jan 17, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Jan 17, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Jan 17, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives.
Jan 17, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not properly complete the required screening (called PASARR) that identifies whether a person entering a nursing home has a mental illness or intellectual disability and needs specialized services.
Jan 17, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Aug 8, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away. · from a complaint
Apr 23, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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. · from a complaint
Apr 3, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not properly hold, secure, and manage residents' personal money that was deposited with it for safekeeping. Facilities holding residents' funds must keep careful, honest accounts. · from a complaint
Jan 12, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Dec 26, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint
Mar 3, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Mar 3, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Mar 3, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
Mar 3, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
Mar 3, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Mar 3, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.
Mar 3, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Mar 3, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives.
Mar 3, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (5 → 4).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202290E
202310D
202440D
2025132J ▲
202650D

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)

No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

MeasureThis facilityCalifornia avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)4.454.313.95top 31% in California; top 25% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.510.610.69top 46% in California; bottom 39% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.953.903.50top 36% in California; top 24% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.270.510.48bottom 27% in California; bottom 26% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)47.636.745.8bottom 19% in California; bottom 43% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)57.138.142.9bottom 18% in California; bottom 26% in the U.S.

Hours are per resident per day, 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 3.91, RN 0.44, weekend 3.47. Staffing rating: 3/5.

Self-reported quality measures

Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.

Quality measures rating: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Centre Capital Investors V, LPOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest07/17/2008
Centre Covenant Purchaser (b), LLCOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest07/17/2008
Centre Covenant Purchaser (q), LLCOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest07/17/2008
Centre Covenant Purchaser (s), LLCOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest12/19/2008
Centre V Secondary Fund, L.P.Organization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest07/17/2008
Covenant Care California, LLCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest07/17/2008
Covenant Care, LLCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest07/17/2008
Covenant Holdco, LLCOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest07/17/2008
Covenant Subco, LLCOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest07/17/2008
Evans, MaryIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest07/17/2008
Levin, RobertIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest07/17/2008
Sims, ChristineIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest07/17/2008
State Treasurer of Mich Custodian of Public School Empl RTMNT SystemsOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest12/19/2008
Stockwell Fund II LPOrganization5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest12/19/2008
Torok, AndrewIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest07/17/2008
Ashley, DavaIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE05/17/2018
Ashley, DavaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE03/26/2018
Carney, KevinIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE11/01/2013
Evans, MaryIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE11/01/2013
Evans, MaryIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE04/14/2006

Questions to ask on your visit

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Channel Islands Post Acute3.4 miSanta Barbara, CA★★★☆☆4/5
Valle Verde Health Facility3.5 miSanta Barbara, CA★★★★★4/5
Samarkand Skilled Nursing Facility4.6 miSanta Barbara, CA★★★★★5/5
Mission Park Healthcare Center4.6 miSanta Barbara, CA★★★★★5/5
The Californian5.1 miSanta Barbara, CA★★★★★5/5
Casa Dorinda9.7 miSanta Barbara, CA★★★★☆4/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Santa Barbara →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555394.