Samarkand Skilled Nursing Facility

Name: Samarkand Skilled Nursing Facility
Address: 2566 Treasure Drive, Santa Barbara, CA, 93105, US
Telephone: 8056870701

2566 Treasure Drive, Santa Barbara, CA 93105 · Santa Barbara County · 63 certified beds · avg 57 residents/day · certified since Aug 21, 2000 · 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: COVENANT LIVING (15 facilities, chain avg rating 4.4★)

5/5

Health inspection rating (on-site)

Serious findings on record

Fines, last 3 years

4.65

Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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

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

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 (28)

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
May 7, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not have a proper governing body legally responsible for its policies and operations, or that body failed to appoint a properly licensed administrator to manage the facility. · from a complaint
Jan 23, 2026	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not post its nurse staffing information every day. Nursing homes must publicly display how many nurses and aides are on duty each day.
Sep 18, 2025	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. · from a complaint
May 5, 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
Dec 19, 2024	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	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.
Dec 19, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential.
Dec 19, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The 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.
Dec 19, 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.
Dec 19, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Dec 19, 2024	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.
Dec 19, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Dec 19, 2024	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Dec 19, 2024	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.
May 9, 2024	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
Feb 10, 2023	F · Potential for harm, facility-wide	The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service.
Feb 10, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	The 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.
Feb 10, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Feb 10, 2023	E · Potential for harm, repeated	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.
Feb 10, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Feb 10, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not post the names, addresses, and phone numbers of state agencies and advocacy groups, along with a notice that residents may file complaints with the state survey agency.
Feb 10, 2023	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 10, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not give residents proper notice about what Medicare or Medicaid covers, or about charges the resident might owe for services that aren't covered.
Feb 10, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility transferred or discharged a resident without a valid reason, or failed to provide the required documentation and information when moving a resident out.
Feb 10, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Feb 10, 2023	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 10, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	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.
Feb 10, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature.
Feb 10, 2023	D · Potential for harm, one-off	The facility did not prepare and serve food in a form that meets each resident's individual needs — for example, chopped, pureed, or softened food for residents with chewing or swallowing problems.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (9 → 1).

Year	Citations	Worst severity that year
2023	14	F
2024	10	F
2025	2	D
2026	2	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)

No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.

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)	4.65	4.31	3.95	top 23% in California; top 19% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours	0.62	0.61	0.69	top 30% in California; top 45% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing	4.16	3.90	3.50	top 25% in California; top 19% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)	0.43	0.51	0.48	top 41% in California; top 43% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)	34.8	36.7	45.8	top 45% in California; top 24% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)	11.1	38.1	42.9	top 6% in California; top 4% 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 4.38, RN 0.59, weekend 3.92. 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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5

Who owns this facility

Non profit - Corporation

Owner / manager	Type	Role	Stake	Since
Covenant Living Communities & Services	Organization	5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest	100%	12/23/1975
Aagaard, Jon	Individual	Corporate Director	NOT APPLICABLE	07/01/2013
Christensen, Pamela	Individual	Corporate Director	NOT APPLICABLE	07/01/2013
Covenant Living Communities & Services	Organization	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	12/23/1975
Cunliffe, Terri	Individual	W-2 Managing Employee	NOT APPLICABLE	03/19/2009
Cunliffe, Terri	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	03/19/2009
Eastburg, Mark	Individual	Corporate Director	NOT APPLICABLE	07/01/2013
Erickson, David	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	01/31/2008
Espinosa, Marc	Individual	Corporate Director	NOT APPLICABLE	07/01/2013
Hodgkinson, Donald	Individual	Corporate Director	NOT APPLICABLE	07/01/2013
Holt, Jody	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	06/02/2017
Manlove, Matt	Individual	Corporate Director	NOT APPLICABLE	07/01/2017
Oxendale, Roger	Individual	Corporate Director	NOT APPLICABLE	07/01/2017
Stante, Marlene	Individual	Corporate Director	NOT APPLICABLE	07/01/2013
Vining, Anne	Individual	Corporate Director	NOT APPLICABLE	07/01/2013

Questions to ask on your visit

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

"Who owns and governs this facility, and how long has the current administrator been here?"
"Where do you post your daily staffing numbers, and can I see today's?"
"How do you inspect and maintain essential equipment, and how quickly are repairs made?"
"Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
"What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
"How do you protect residents' privacy, both in their medical records and in day-to-day care?"
"How do you make sure resident assessments are completed and submitted to the state on time?"
"Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
"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
Mission Park Healthcare Center	0.2 mi	Santa Barbara, CA	★★★★★	5/5
The Californian	0.6 mi	Santa Barbara, CA	★★★★★	5/5
Valle Verde Health Facility	1.2 mi	Santa Barbara, CA	★★★★★	4/5
Channel Islands Post Acute	1.4 mi	Santa Barbara, CA	★★★☆☆	4/5
Buena Vista Care Center	4.6 mi	Santa Barbara, CA	★★☆☆☆	2/5
Casa Dorinda	5.1 mi	Santa Barbara, CA	★★★★☆	4/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Santa Barbara →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555762.

The Care File

Visit checklist — Samarkand Skilled Nursing Facility

2566 Treasure Drive, Santa Barbara, CA 93105 · 8056870701

Health inspection rating 5/5 · CMS overall 5/5· Fines (3y): $0

Questions for the administrator:

☐ "Who owns and governs this facility, and how long has the current administrator been here?"
☐ "Where do you post your daily staffing numbers, and can I see today's?"
☐ "How do you inspect and maintain essential equipment, and how quickly are repairs made?"
☐ "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
☐ "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
☐ "How do you protect residents' privacy, both in their medical records and in day-to-day care?"
☐ "How do you make sure resident assessments are completed and submitted to the state on time?"
☐ "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
☐ "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?"

While you're there, notice:

☐ Smell and cleanliness in hallways, not just the lobby
☐ How staff speak to residents; call lights answered promptly
☐ Residents up, dressed, and engaged (visit mealtimes and a weekend if you can)

Data: CMS Provider Data Catalog, version 2026-08-01 · CCN 555762 · Verify at medicare.gov/care-compare · Printed from The Care File (thecarefile.com)