How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Valley Oaks Post Acute
830 East Chapel Street, Santa Maria, CA 93454 (opens Google Maps) · Santa Barbara County · (805) 922-6657· 59 certified beds · avg 51 residents/day · certified since Mar 22, 1968 · 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 →
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Feb 12, 2026
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.43
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: ★★★★☆4/5 · 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.
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 33 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · from a complaint F-0755
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
The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. F-0583
View all 33 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 30, 2026 | 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. · from a complaint · F-0755 |
| 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 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · F-0583 |
| Feb 12, 2026 | 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 12, 2026 | 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 |
| Sep 9, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint · F-0842 |
| Jul 3, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not reassess a resident after a significant change in their condition, such as a sudden decline in health. A full new assessment is required when a resident's condition changes in a major way. · from a complaint · F-0637 |
| Jul 2, 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 |
| Jul 2, 2025 | 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 |
| Jan 27, 2025 | 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 |
| 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 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689 |
| Dec 19, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not run an ongoing quality assurance committee that reviews care problems and creates plans to fix them. · F-0867 |
| Dec 19, 2024 | 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, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not honor residents' right to manage their own money and financial affairs. · F-0567 |
| Nov 19, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 · F-0609 |
| Nov 19, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · from a complaint · F-0641 |
| Nov 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. · from a complaint · F-0657 |
| Feb 17, 2022 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | 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 |
| Feb 17, 2022 | 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 17, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly. · F-0585 |
| Feb 17, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility's activities program was not run by a qualified professional. The person directing recreation and social activities must have proper training or credentials. · F-0680 |
| Feb 17, 2022 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not have a policy covering how food brought in by family and visitors is used and stored safely. · F-0813 |
| Feb 17, 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 |
| Feb 17, 2022 | 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 17, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not reassess a resident after a significant change in their condition, such as a sudden decline in health. A full new assessment is required when a resident's condition changes in a major way. · F-0637 |
| Feb 17, 2022 | 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. · F-0676 |
| Feb 17, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 17, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · F-0760 |
| Feb 17, 2022 | 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 |
| Feb 17, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide or arrange dental services for its residents. Nursing homes are responsible for making sure residents can get dental care. · F-0791 |
| Feb 17, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service. · F-0802 |
| Feb 17, 2022 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (5 → 4).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2022
All citations: 15
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 8
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 5
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 5
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 15 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 8 | 0 | F |
| 2025 | 5 | 0 | D |
| 2026 | 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.
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: 4.43
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.72
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.67
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) | 4.43 | 4.31 | 3.95 | top 32% in California; top 25% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.72 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 22% in California; top 34% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.67 | 3.90 | 3.50 | bottom 44% in California; top 34% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.30 | 0.51 | 0.48 | bottom 35% in California; bottom 33% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | — | 36.7 | 45.8 | — |
| RN turnover (%) | — | 38.1 | 42.9 | — |
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 4.31, RN 0.70, weekend 3.57.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.31 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.
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: 3/5 · short-stay residents: 4/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Valley Oaks Post Acute. 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 →
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mt Trust | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 50% | 08/16/2021 |
| Tanner, Bryan | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 25% | 08/16/2021 |
| Tanner, Renae | Individual | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | 25% | 08/16/2021 |
| 840 E. Chapel, LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2021 |
| Johnson, James | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 09/01/2021 |
| Mayer PP Associates, LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2021 |
| Mayer, Helene | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2021 |
| Mayer, Ronald | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2021 |
| Nooristani, Ahmad | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/16/2021 |
| Nooristani, Ahmad | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/16/2021 |
| Padilla, Jace | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/27/2024 |
| Padilla, Jace | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 03/27/2024 |
| Tanner, Bryan | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2021 |
| Tanner, Bryan | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2021 |
| Zermatt U.s. Health Services, LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2021 |
| Zermatt U.s. Health Services, LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2021 |
All 16 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "How does your pharmacist review residents' medications, and how quickly can you fill new or urgent prescriptions?"
- "Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
- "How do you protect residents' privacy, both in their medical records and in day-to-day care?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "Can you show me how medications are stored and secured on the units, including controlled drugs?"
- "How do you keep residents' medical records accurate, complete, and secure?"
- "If my family member's health suddenly changes, how quickly do you reassess them and update their care?"
- "How do you make sure each resident's care follows the doctor's orders, and what changed after this citation?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the California midpoint — how does the weekend schedule differ from a weekday?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 16 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Villa Maria Post Acute | 0.6 mi | Santa Maria, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Marian Regional Medical Center D/P SNF | 0.6 mi | Santa Maria, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Santa Maria Post Acute | 1.7 mi | Santa Maria, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Arroyo Grande Care Center | 14.8 mi | Arroyo Grande, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 |
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.
- Atterdag Care Center — Solvang, CA · overall 3/5
- Buena Vista Care Center — Santa Barbara, CA · overall 2/5
- Casa Dorinda — Santa Barbara, CA · overall 4/5
- Channel Islands Post Acute — Santa Barbara, CA · overall 3/5
- Lompoc Skilled Nursing & Rehabilitation Center — Lompoc, CA · overall 4/5
- Lompoc Valley Medical Center Comprehensive Care Ce — Lompoc, CA · overall 5/5
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 055826.