How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
1115 B Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 (opens Google Maps) · Sonoma County · (707) 765-3030· 90 certified beds · avg 78 residents/day · certified since May 22, 1969 · Medicare and Medicaid certified
Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →
Part of chain: ASPEN SKILLED HEALTHCARE (35 facilities, chain avg rating 3.7★)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★★★5/5 · 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.
Showing the latest 3 of 16 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not help a resident get vision and hearing services — such as eye exams, glasses, hearing tests, or hearing aids. F-0685
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
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
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 19, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not help a resident get vision and hearing services — such as eye exams, glasses, hearing tests, or hearing aids. · F-0685 |
| Dec 19, 2025 | 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 19, 2025 | 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 19, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide required paperwork or notices about a resident's needs, their right to appeal a transfer or discharge, or the facility's bed-hold policy (how long a bed is saved during a hospital stay). · F-0628 |
| Mar 12, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not properly plan a resident's discharge to meet the resident's goals and needs after leaving. · from a complaint · F-0660 |
| Dec 19, 2024 | 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 19, 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 |
| Mar 11, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not honor residents' right to receive the visitors they choose, at the times they choose. · F-0563 |
| Mar 11, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide activities that meet residents' needs and interests. Nursing homes must offer meaningful activity programs, not just leave residents idle. · F-0679 |
| Mar 11, 2022 | 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 |
| Mar 11, 2022 | 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 |
| Mar 11, 2022 | 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 |
| Mar 11, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not properly plan a resident's discharge to meet the resident's goals and needs after leaving. · F-0660 |
| Mar 11, 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 |
| Mar 11, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide necessary behavioral health care and services — support for residents' mental and emotional wellbeing, including conditions like depression and anxiety. · F-0740 |
| Mar 11, 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 |
Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (2 → 4).
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 | 2 | 0 | D |
| 2025 | 5 | 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 →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
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) | 4.76 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 20% in California; top 17% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 1.25 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 6% in California; top 8% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.55 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 13% in California; top 11% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 1.04 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 7% in California; top 5% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 31.4 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 34% in California; top 17% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 35.0 | 38.1 | 42.9 | top 46% in California; top 38% 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 4.22, RN 1.11, weekend 4.04.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.22 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 5/5.
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: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Petaluma Post-Acute Rehabilitation. 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 →
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aptb, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 06/25/2019 |
| Bradshaw, Peter | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 07/07/2023 |
| Elsner, Eric | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/25/2019 |
| Kirkwood, Jared | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/25/2019 |
| Orgill, Craig | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/25/2019 |
| Parti, Rajesh | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/25/2019 |
| Parti, Shruty | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/25/2019 |
| Paxman, Marcus | Individual | Indirect Ownership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/01/2022 |
| Aptb, LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/25/2019 |
| Aptb, LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/25/2019 |
| Aspen Healthcare Services LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2023 |
| Bradshaw, Jeffrey | Individual | Individual Is an Owner, Partner or Trustee of Any ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/08/2026 |
| Bradshaw, Jeffrey | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2023 |
| Brady, Vern | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2023 |
| Case, Ryan | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2023 |
| East West Bank | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/25/2019 |
| Jurado, Frank | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2023 |
| Kraft, Shirley | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2018 |
| Kraft, Shirley | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/01/2018 |
| McLaughlin, Haley | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 11/20/2020 |
Showing 20 of 31 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 11 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
CMS lists this facility under the chain Aspen Skilled Healthcare — 35 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 34 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hillcrest Post Acute | 0.0 mi | Petaluma, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Ridgeway Post Acute | 0.1 mi | Petaluma, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| North Bay Post Acute | 0.7 mi | Petaluma, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Vineyard Post Acute | 2.5 mi | Petaluma, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Novato Healthcare Center | 9.5 mi | Novato, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Valley of the Moon Post Acute | 10.8 mi | Sonoma, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | abuse |
| Broadway Villa Post Acute | 11.0 mi | Sonoma, CA | ★★★★★ | 3/5 | |
| Sonoma Post Acute | 11.3 mi | Sonoma, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Northvine Postacute Care | 14.3 mi | Santa Rosa, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Apple Valley Post-Acute Rehab | 14.8 mi | Sebastopol, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Santa Rosa Post Acute | 15.2 mi | Santa Rosa, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Blue Oak Post-Acute | 15.3 mi | Santa Rosa, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
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.
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 056072.
May we use Google Analytics cookies to measure visits and pages viewed? Optional — every feature works without them. Privacy details