300 Hot Springs Road, Santa Barbara, CA 93108 (opens Google Maps) · Santa Barbara County · (805) 969-8051· 52 certified beds · avg 36 residents/day · certified since Jun 22, 1976 · 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 →
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5 · 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.
▲ Actual harm, isolated · Nov 18, 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 (G): Actual harm was cited, below immediate jeopardy. The scope was isolated: limited residents, staff, or locations were affected. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.
Corrected: Dec 8, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 31 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
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
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
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 6, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Mar 6, 2026 | 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 |
| Mar 6, 2026 | 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 |
| Mar 6, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. · F-0801 |
| Mar 6, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804 |
| Mar 6, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records. · F-0851 |
| Mar 6, 2026 | 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 |
| Nov 18, 2025 | ▲ G · Actual 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 |
| Dec 5, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not electronically submit complete and accurate staffing information to the government, based on payroll and other verifiable records. · F-0851 |
| Dec 5, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 5, 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. · F-0656 |
| Dec 5, 2024 | 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 |
| Dec 5, 2024 | 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 |
| Dec 5, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline. · F-0688 |
| Dec 5, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755 |
| Dec 5, 2024 | 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 |
| Dec 5, 2024 | 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 |
| Nov 5, 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 |
| Nov 5, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0658 |
| Apr 12, 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 |
| Apr 12, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. · from a complaint · F-0801 |
| Apr 12, 2024 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0803 |
| Oct 20, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service. · F-0802 |
| Oct 20, 2022 | 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 |
| Oct 20, 2022 | 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 |
| Oct 20, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692 |
| Oct 20, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755 |
| Oct 20, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' medications free from unnecessary drugs. Residents should only take medicines they truly need, at the right dose, for a clear reason. · F-0757 |
| Oct 20, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804 |
| Oct 20, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure special medical diets — like low-sodium or diabetic diets — were properly ordered by the resident's doctor or managed by a qualified dietitian as state law allows. · F-0808 |
| Oct 20, 2022 | 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 |
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (9 → 7).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 9 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 14 | 0 | F |
| 2025 | 1 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2026 | 7 | 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.
How to file a complaint about care →
1 fine totaling $8,278.
Every penalty CMS publishes for this facility in the 3-year window is listed —none excluded. The count and the dollar total come from two different CMS datasets and agree for this facility. Penalties older than the window are dropped by CMS before publication, not by us.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Nov 18, 2025 | Fine | $8,278 |
What these staffing numbers mean →
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) | 2.55 | 4.31 | 3.95 | bottom 1% in California; bottom 4% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 1.02 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 11% in California; top 15% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 2.17 | 3.90 | 3.50 | bottom 1% in California; bottom 3% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.77 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 12% in California; top 12% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | — | 36.7 | 45.8 | — |
| RN turnover (%) | — | 38.1 | 42.9 | — |
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 2.15, RN 0.86, weekend 1.83.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (2.15 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 1/5.
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: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Casa Dorinda. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
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.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
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 →
Non profit - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brown, David | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2021 |
| Brown, Mary | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/30/2021 |
| Brown, Mary | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/22/2025 |
| Brown, Matthew | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2021 |
| Caberte, Glynn | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/30/2022 |
| Clark, Ramona | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2019 |
| Curtis, William | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2023 |
| Fellows, Steven | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2023 |
| Gifford, Andrew | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Kern, Barkley | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2022 |
| Kupperman, Jeffrey | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2022 |
| Lovan, Diana | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| McCague, Brian | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/01/2016 |
| McCague, Brian | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/01/2016 |
| McFarlane, James | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Montecito Retirement Association | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/1975 |
| Stevens, Bruce | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2024 |
| Toomey, Christopher | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2019 |
| Zaninovich, Katina | Individual | Managing Control - Governing Body | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2018 |
All 19 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Californian | 4.6 mi | Santa Barbara, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Mission Park Healthcare Center | 5.1 mi | Santa Barbara, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Samarkand Skilled Nursing Facility | 5.1 mi | Santa Barbara, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Valle Verde Health Facility | 6.3 mi | Santa Barbara, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Channel Islands Post Acute | 6.3 mi | Santa Barbara, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 4/5 | |
| Buena Vista Care Center | 9.7 mi | Santa Barbara, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
CMS records place this facility in Santa Barbara, CA — 14 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
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 555023.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details