How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Samarkand Skilled Nursing Facility
2566 Treasure Drive, Santa Barbara, CA 93105 (opens Google Maps) · Santa Barbara County · (805) 687-0701· 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)
inspected Jan 23, 2026
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.65
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
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.
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 28 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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 F-0837
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. F-0732
The facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. · from a complaint F-0908
View all 28 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings
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 |
|---|---|---|
| May 7, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 · F-0837 |
| Jan 23, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0732 |
| Sep 18, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. · from a complaint · F-0908 |
| May 5, 2025 | 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 |
| Dec 19, 2024 | 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 |
| Dec 19, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · F-0583 |
| Dec 19, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0640 |
| Dec 19, 2024 | 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 |
| Dec 19, 2024 | 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 |
| Dec 19, 2024 | 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 |
| Dec 19, 2024 | 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 |
| Dec 19, 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 |
| Dec 19, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| May 9, 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. · from a complaint · F-0658 |
| Feb 10, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not employ enough qualified food and nutrition staff, including a qualified dietician, to properly run its food service. · F-0801 |
| Feb 10, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0640 |
| Feb 10, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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. · F-0803 |
| Feb 10, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 10, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 10, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0575 |
| Feb 10, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0577 |
| Feb 10, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0582 |
| Feb 10, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0622 |
| Feb 10, 2023 | 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 |
| Feb 10, 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 10, 2023 | 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 |
| Feb 10, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not serve food and drinks that were appetizing, attractive, and at a safe and pleasant temperature. · F-0804 |
| Feb 10, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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. · F-0805 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (9 → 1).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 14
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 10
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 0
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 14 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 10 | 0 | F |
| 2025 | 2 | 0 | D |
| 2026 | 2 | 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)
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
What these staffing numbers mean →
This facilityCalifornia averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 4.65
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.62
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 4.16
California average: 3.90
U.S. average: 3.50
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) | 4.65 | 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 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 4.38, RN 0.59, weekend 3.92.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.38 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 4/5.
Quality measures: assessments & claims
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: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Samarkand Skilled Nursing Facility. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Calculate a stay from a quote you receive
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.
Before you compare prices
- Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
- Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
- Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
Who owns this facility
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
All 15 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Covenant Living — 15 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.
- Village Care and Rehabilitation Center, the — Westminster, CO · overall 4/5
- Pilgrim Manor — Cromwell, CT · overall 5/5
- Covenant Village Care Center — Plantation, FL · overall 5/5
- Brandel Health and Rehab — Northbrook, IL · overall 5/5
- Covenant Living - Windsor Park — Carol Stream, IL · overall 5/5
- Michaelsen Health Center — Batavia, IL · overall 5/5
- Three Crowns Park — Evanston, IL · overall 2/5abuse
- Covenant Village of the Great Lakes — Grand Rapids, MI · overall 4/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 14 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
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?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "CMS reports 35% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 15 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Santa Barbara, CA — 14 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Santa Maria Post Acute — Santa Maria, CA · overall 2/5
- Valley Oaks Post Acute — Santa Maria, CA · overall 4/5
- Villa Maria Post Acute — Santa Maria, CA · overall 5/5
- Atterdag Care Center — Solvang, CA · overall 3/5
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 555762.