1401 New Stine Road, Bakersfield, CA 93309 (opens Google Maps) · Kern County · (661) 834-0620· 79 certified beds · avg 65 residents/day · certified since Jul 9, 1979 · 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: HUMANGOOD (17 facilities, chain avg rating 4.5★)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · 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 · Feb 11, 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: Mar 21, 2025 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)
Showing the latest 3 of 47 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not designate a qualified infection preventionist — a trained person responsible for running the infection prevention and control program. F-0882
The facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups. F-0558
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
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Feb 12, 2026 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not designate a qualified infection preventionist — a trained person responsible for running the infection prevention and control program. · F-0882 |
| Feb 12, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups. · F-0558 |
| Feb 12, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Feb 12, 2026 | 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 |
| Feb 12, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0881 |
| Feb 12, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · F-0921 |
| Feb 12, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not treat residents with respect and dignity, or did not let them keep and use their own personal belongings. · F-0557 |
| Feb 12, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections. · F-0690 |
| Feb 12, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them. · F-0867 |
| Dec 10, 2025 | 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 |
| Feb 11, 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 3, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0684 |
| Nov 7, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 7, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Nov 7, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · F-0726 |
| Nov 7, 2024 | 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 |
| Nov 7, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. · F-0552 |
| Nov 7, 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 |
| Nov 7, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0677 |
| Nov 7, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not try to gradually reduce doses of mood- and mind-altering medications or use non-drug approaches first, as required, or used 'as needed' psychiatric drugs without proper limits. · F-0758 |
| Nov 7, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide food that accounts for each resident's allergies, intolerances, and personal preferences, or did not offer appealing alternatives. · F-0806 |
| Oct 15, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not help residents with transportation to and from laboratory services outside the facility. · from a complaint · F-0774 |
| Sep 27, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not treat residents with respect and dignity, or did not let them keep and use their own personal belongings. · from a complaint · F-0557 |
| Sep 5, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · from a complaint · F-0676 |
| Sep 5, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide routine dental care and 24-hour emergency dental care for residents. · from a complaint · F-0790 |
| Jan 4, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection. · from a complaint · F-0607 |
| Oct 30, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · from a complaint · F-0583 |
| Sep 20, 2023 | 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 |
| Sep 20, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · from a complaint · F-0725 |
| Aug 18, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 · F-0580 |
| Aug 18, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0684 |
| Aug 18, 2023 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0692 |
| Aug 18, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide or obtain laboratory tests when a doctor ordered them, or did not promptly report the results back to the doctor who ordered them. · from a complaint · F-0773 |
| Feb 9, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems. · F-0756 |
| Feb 9, 2023 | 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. · F-0812 |
| Feb 9, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Feb 9, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Feb 9, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it. · F-0695 |
| Feb 9, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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. · F-0759 |
| Feb 9, 2023 | 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 |
| Feb 9, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not fully assess residents on time — a complete assessment of health, abilities, and needs is required when a resident is first admitted and at least once every 12 months after that. · F-0636 |
| Feb 9, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the required 15 months of resident assessments in each resident's active medical record. · F-0639 |
| Feb 9, 2023 | 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 |
| Feb 9, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · F-0686 |
| Feb 9, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| Feb 9, 2023 | 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 |
| Feb 9, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide routine dental care and 24-hour emergency dental care for residents. · F-0790 |
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (9 → 9).
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 21 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 15 | 0 | F |
| 2025 | 2 | 1 | G ▲ |
| 2026 | 9 | 0 | F |
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, plus 1 Medicare payment denial period.
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Feb 11, 2025 | Fine | $8,278 |
| Sep 5, 2024 | Payment Denial | 32 days from Dec 5, 2024 |
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) | 4.91 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 16% in California; top 15% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 1.04 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 10% in California; top 14% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 4.46 | 3.90 | 3.50 | top 16% in California; top 13% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.76 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 13% in California; top 13% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 24.1 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 15% in California; top 6% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 29.4 | 38.1 | 42.9 | top 37% in California; top 28% 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 4.82, RN 1.02, weekend 4.37.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.82 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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 2/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Rosewood Health Facility. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Humangood | Organization | 5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest | 100% | 05/01/2016 |
| Humangood Norcal | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 100% | 01/01/1977 |
| Baker Tilly Advisory Group LP | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/21/2025 |
| Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/21/2025 |
| Baker Tilly Us LLP | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 10/15/2024 |
| Baker, Judith | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/25/2012 |
| Balaban, Rochelle | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2018 |
| Balaban, Rochelle | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2018 |
| Battison, William | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/01/2016 |
| Brown, Herman | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/01/2016 |
| Brown, Herman | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/01/2016 |
| Christopherson, Joanne | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/20/2025 |
| Cochrane, John | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/10/2009 |
| Cochrane, John | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/10/2009 |
| Dhand, Sandeep | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/09/2026 |
| Dhand, Sandeep | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/09/2026 |
| Feller, Irene | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/12/2021 |
| Ghassemi, Bethany | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/21/2019 |
| Ghassemi, Bethany | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 05/21/2019 |
| Gonzales, Deborah | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/25/2022 |
Showing 20 of 44 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 24 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.
CMS lists this facility under the chain Humangood — 17 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 16 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parkview Julian Healthcare Center | 2.6 mi | Bakersfield, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Valley Healthcare Center | 2.7 mi | Bakersfield, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| The Orchards Post-Acute | 4.0 mi | Bakersfield, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Kern River Transitional Care | 4.2 mi | Bakersfield, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| San Joaquin Nursing Center and Rehabilitation Cent | 4.4 mi | Bakersfield, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| The Rehabilitation Center of Bakersfield | 6.0 mi | Bakersfield, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Height Street Skilled Care | 6.2 mi | Bakersfield, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Bayshire Riverwalk Post-Acute | 6.9 mi | Bakersfield, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Bakersfield Post Acute | 8.2 mi | Bakersfield, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Arvin Post Acute | 15.8 mi | Arvin, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Shafter Nursing Care | 16.8 mi | Shafter, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
CMS records place this facility in Kern, CA — 17 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 555116.
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