California ›Santa Rosa

Northvine Postacute Care

446 Arrowood Dr, Santa Rosa, CA 95407 · Sonoma County · 62 certified beds · avg 62 residents/day · certified since Jan 10, 1971

Part of chain: RMG CAPITAL PARTNERS (9 facilities, chain avg rating 2.6★)

1/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
4
Serious findings on record
$36,288
Fines, last 3 years
4.13
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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

Health inspection rating: ★☆☆☆☆1/5 · CMS overall rating: 1/5

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, facility-wide · Apr 4, 2025 · F-0921 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors.

Why it matters: An unsafe or unclean environment raises the risk of falls, infections, and daily discomfort for residents.

Severity (L): A life-threatening or extremely dangerous situation existed throughout the facility. The single most serious citation CMS can issue.

Corrected: May 2, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, repeated · Jun 9, 2023 · F-0835

The facility was not managed in a way that uses its money, staff, and resources effectively and efficiently to care for residents.

Why it matters: Poor administration often shows up as understaffing, supply shortages, and care problems across the whole facility.

Severity (K): A life-threatening or extremely dangerous situation affected several residents. Among the most serious findings an inspection can produce.

Corrected: Jul 21, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Jul 28, 2025 · F-0658 · triggered by a complaint

The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.

Why it matters: Care that falls below professional standards can directly harm a resident's health and recovery.

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: Aug 27, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Jul 28, 2025 · F-0687 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not provide proper foot care for residents. Foot care includes routine care like nail trimming and attention to foot problems, which matter greatly for older adults.

Why it matters: Neglected feet can develop painful sores and infections, especially dangerous for residents with diabetes.

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: Aug 27, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (76)

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
Jan 28, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide specialized rehabilitation services — like physical, occupational, or speech therapy — by qualified staff when a doctor ordered them for a resident. · from a complaint
Jul 28, 2025▲ G · Actual 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. · from a complaint
Jul 28, 2025▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not provide proper foot care for residents. Foot care includes routine care like nail trimming and attention to foot problems, which matter greatly for older adults. · from a complaint
Jul 28, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests. · from a complaint
Jul 14, 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
Jun 3, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint
May 21, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own. · from a complaint
Apr 10, 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
Apr 4, 2025▲ L · Immediate jeopardy, facility-wideThe facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · from a complaint
Apr 4, 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. · from a complaint
Apr 4, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility was not managed in a way that uses its money, staff, and resources effectively and efficiently to care for residents. · from a complaint
Apr 4, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not have a written plan describing how it runs its quality improvement program — the ongoing process of finding problems in care and fixing them. · from a complaint
Apr 4, 2025F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests. · from a complaint
Dec 5, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Dec 5, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do. · from a complaint
Oct 25, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to prevent or deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
Oct 25, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable.
Oct 25, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Oct 25, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide necessary behavioral health care and services — support for residents' mental and emotional wellbeing, including conditions like depression and anxiety.
Oct 25, 2024E · 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.
Oct 25, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Oct 25, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Oct 25, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not enter each resident's assessment information into the required format and send it to the state within 7 days of completing the assessment, as the rules require.
Oct 25, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration.
Oct 9, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors. · from a complaint
Oct 1, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not allow people with a legal right to see a resident — such as family, doctors, or ombudsmen — to have immediate access to that resident. · from a complaint
Oct 1, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · from a complaint
Oct 1, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have a working call system — the button or cord residents use to summon help — in each resident's bathroom and bathing area. · from a complaint
Oct 1, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have policies on smoking. · from a complaint
Oct 1, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not honor a resident's right to choose their own attending doctor. Residents get to decide which physician oversees their care. · from a complaint
Oct 1, 2024D · 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. · from a complaint
Oct 1, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · from a complaint
Dec 14, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide appropriate treatment and services to residents with a mental health condition, difficulty adjusting emotionally, or a history of trauma or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). · from a complaint
Jun 9, 2023▲ K · Immediate jeopardy, repeatedThe facility was not managed in a way that uses its money, staff, and resources effectively and efficiently to care for residents.
Jun 9, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
Jun 9, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care.
Jun 9, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service.
Jun 9, 2023F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not have a working call system — the button or cord residents use to summon help — in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
Jun 9, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Jun 9, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not update each resident's care assessment at least once every 3 months. These regular check-ins keep the resident's care plan matched to their current condition.
Jun 9, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not create and follow a basic care plan covering a new resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of admission. The first days are when a new resident is most vulnerable.
Jun 9, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Jun 9, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Jun 9, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility allowed residents to lose the ability to do daily activities — like bathing, dressing, and eating — when there was no medical reason for the decline. Good care helps residents keep the abilities they have.
Jun 9, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own.
Jun 9, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Jun 9, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Jun 9, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Jun 9, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration.
Jun 9, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident.
Jun 9, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Jun 9, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Jun 9, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Jun 9, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them.
Jun 9, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices.
Jun 9, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand.
Jun 9, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors.
Jun 9, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation.
Jun 9, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not respond appropriately to alleged violations, such as reports of abuse, neglect, or mistreatment. Facilities must investigate every allegation and protect residents while they do.
Jun 9, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service.
Feb 14, 2022F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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.
Feb 14, 2022F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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.
Feb 14, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Feb 14, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Feb 14, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Feb 14, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care.
Feb 14, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Feb 14, 2022E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them.
Feb 14, 2022D · 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.
Feb 14, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents from abuse or neglect. This covers physical, mental, and sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect, by anyone — staff, other residents, or visitors.
Feb 14, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation.
Feb 14, 2022D · 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.
Feb 14, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure resident assessments were done by a qualified health professional. Assessments guide all of a resident's care, so the person doing them must be properly trained.
Feb 14, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Feb 14, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have a written plan describing how it runs its quality improvement program — the ongoing process of finding problems in care and fixing them.
Feb 14, 2022D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility's quality committee — the internal group responsible for finding and fixing care problems — did not have the required members or did not meet at least every three months.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (27 → 9).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2022160F
2023281K ▲
2024190F
2025123L ▲
202610D

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)

5 fines totaling $36,288.

DateTypeAmount / length
Jul 28, 2025Fine$17,940
Sep 11, 2023Fine$4,587
Sep 5, 2023Fine$4,587
Aug 28, 2023Fine$4,587
Aug 21, 2023Fine$4,587

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)4.134.313.95top 50% in California; top 35% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.210.610.69bottom 2% in California; bottom 3% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.943.903.50top 37% in California; top 25% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.190.510.48bottom 9% in California; bottom 11% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)47.536.745.8bottom 19% in California; bottom 43% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)80.038.142.9bottom 4% in California; bottom 6% 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 3.59, RN 0.19, weekend 3.42. Staffing rating: 2/5.

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: 3/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Bansal, JaganIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest50%04/17/2023
Bansal, ManeeshIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest50%04/17/2023
RMG Capital Partners, LLCOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%01/01/2019
Bansal, JaganIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE06/15/2017
Bansal, ManeeshIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE06/15/2017
Bansal, ManeeshIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE06/15/2017
Bansal, ManeeshIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/15/2017
Reliant Management Group, LLCOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE12/12/2019

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
Blue Oak Post-Acute1.3 miSanta Rosa, CA★★☆☆☆1/5abuse
Santa Rosa Post Acute3.0 miSanta Rosa, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Park View Post Acute3.5 miSanta Rosa, CA★★☆☆☆2/5abuse
Summerfield Health Care Center3.6 miSanta Rosa, CA★★★★★5/5
Arbol Healthcare Center of Santa Rosa3.7 miSanta Rosa, CA★★★★★4/5
Spring Lake Village5.0 miSanta Rosa, CA★★★★★4/5
Apple Valley Post-Acute Rehab5.8 miSebastopol, CA★★★★★4/5
Vineyard Post Acute12.5 miPetaluma, CA★★★☆☆2/5
North Bay Post Acute14.1 miPetaluma, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5abuse
Hillcrest Post Acute14.2 miPetaluma, CA★★★★☆4/5
Petaluma Post-Acute Rehabilitation14.3 miPetaluma, CA★★★★★5/5
Ridgeway Post Acute14.3 miPetaluma, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Santa Rosa →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 056259.