Lompoc Skilled Nursing & Rehabilitation Center
1428 West North Avenue, Lompoc, CA 93436 · Santa Barbara County · 120 certified beds · avg 89 residents/day · certified since Dec 19, 2005
Part of chain: GENERATIONS HEALTHCARE (27 facilities, chain avg rating 4.1★)
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
0
Serious findings on record
$4,893
Fines, last 3 years
4.25
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5
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.
All citations in the current public record (29)
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 23, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Jun 23, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Feb 21, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Feb 21, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not make its inspection results easy for residents to see, or made it hard for residents to contact advocacy agencies like the ombudsman. |
| Feb 21, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Feb 21, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. |
| Feb 21, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. |
| Feb 21, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. |
| Feb 21, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Feb 21, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. |
| Feb 21, 2025 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Dec 6, 2024 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Oct 5, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · from a complaint |
| Oct 3, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint |
| Aug 18, 2023 | E · Potential for harm, repeated | 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. |
| Aug 18, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Aug 18, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. |
| Aug 18, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. |
| Aug 18, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. |
| Aug 18, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Aug 18, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives. |
| Aug 18, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Aug 14, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Aug 14, 2023 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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 |
| Oct 10, 2019 | F · Potential for harm, facility-wide | 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. |
| Oct 10, 2019 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. |
| Oct 10, 2019 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | 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. |
| Oct 10, 2019 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. |
| Oct 10, 2019 | D · Potential for harm, one-off | The facility did not have a working program to monitor how antibiotics are used. Tracking antibiotic use helps make sure these drugs are given only when needed and remain effective. |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (8 → 9).
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 5 | 0 | F |
| 2023 | 12 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 1 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 11 | 0 | D |
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)
2 fines totaling $4,893.
| Date | Type | Amount / length |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 18, 2023 | Fine | $1,748 |
| Aug 28, 2023 | Fine | $3,145 |
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
| Measure | This facility | California avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 4.25 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 41% in California; top 30% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.55 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 39% in California; bottom 44% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.83 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 44% in California; top 28% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.34 | 0.51 | 0.48 | bottom 43% in California; bottom 40% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 32.4 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 38% in California; top 19% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 27.3 | 38.1 | 42.9 | top 31% in California; top 24% 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 4.11, RN 0.53, weekend 3.70. Staffing rating: 4/5.
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: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5
Who owns this facility
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mastrocola, Lois | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 9% | 11/01/2012 |
| Olds, Thomas | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 78% | 11/01/2012 |
| Bmo Bank National Association | Organization | 5% or Greater Security Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/06/2021 |
| Hall, Mark | Individual | W-2 Managing Employee | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/28/2022 |
| Life Generations Healthcare, LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/16/2012 |
| Mastrocola, Lois | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2012 |
| Olds, Thomas | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2012 |
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
- "If my family member is able to manage their own medications, would you allow it, and how is that decided?"
- "Where do you post your latest state inspection results and the ombudsman's contact information?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "How does your pharmacist review residents' medications, and how quickly can you fill new or urgent prescriptions?"
- "What systems do you use to prevent medication errors, and what happens when one occurs?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
- "Can I see the results and plan of correction from your most recent state inspection?"
Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lompoc Valley Medical Center Comprehensive Care Ce | 1.4 mi | Lompoc, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Atterdag Care Center | 19.1 mi | Solvang, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 4/5 |
Compare this facility with the 2 closest →
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555830.