Mission Park Healthcare Center
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Mission Park Healthcare Center in Santa Barbara, California, has a Trust Grade of B+, indicating it is above average and recommended for potential residents. It ranks #142 out of 1,155 facilities in California, placing it in the top half, and #6 out of 14 in Santa Barbara County, meaning only five local options are better. However, the facility is currently worsening, with issues doubling from 4 in 2023 to 8 in 2024. Staffing is a concern, earning only 2 out of 5 stars, and while the turnover rate is 43%, which is average, there is less RN coverage than 95% of California facilities, which could impact resident care. Importantly, there have been several concerning incidents, including failures to complete fall assessments after residents fell and a lack of available pain medication for a resident, as well as not involving a resident’s representative in care planning, which could affect the quality of care. Overall, while the facility has strengths in its high inspection and quality ratings, these staffing and incident concerns warrant careful consideration.
- Trust Score
- B+
- In California
- #142/1155
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 43% turnover. Near California's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most California facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 14 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for California. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 14 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (43%)
5 points below California average of 48%
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
Near California avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
The Ugly 14 deficiencies on record
Dec 2024
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure an incident report was completed and a post-fall assessment and investigation was completed af...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure pain medication was available for a...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2024
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0553
(Tag F0553)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure resident ' s representative (RR) was invited and included in the formulation of a person-centered baseline care plan (CP -implementa...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to provide resident or the resident ' s representative (RR) a summary of the baseline care plan (initial plan of care) for one of two sampled ...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2024
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Free from Abuse/Neglect
(Tag F0600)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to keep one of three residents (Resident 1) free from abuse when the resident was the victim of sexual abuse by Resident 2.
This...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to report sexual abuse within two hours per regulation and their abuse policy and procedure when one of three residents (Resident 3) was the ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Apr 2024
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review, and interview, the facility failed to adhere to their medication administration policy and procedures, for two of two sampled Residents (Resident 1 and Resident 2).
This facili...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2024
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow a physician's order for treatment and care as ordered for one of two sampled residents (Resident 1).
This failure had the potential ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2023
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0655
(Tag F0655)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure a person centered careplan was developed and implemented for one of two residents (Resident 1) per the facility's policy and procedu...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2023
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision for one of two sampled residents (Resi...
Read full inspector narrative →
Aug 2023
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to implement one of two sample residents' (Resident 1's) ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the Physician of a change of condition (COC) fo...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2022
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0692
(Tag F0692)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure an accurate system for monitoring the effectiveness of nutrition interventions in order to have the ability to identif...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 2019
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
MDS Data Transmission
(Tag F0640)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure a completed Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool) were transmitted timely per regulation for one sampled resident (Resident 6) a...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • Grade B+ (85/100). Above average facility, better than most options in California.
- • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most California facilities.
- • 43% turnover. Below California's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 14 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is Mission Park Healthcare Center's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns Mission Park Healthcare Center an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much above average nationally. Within California, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.
How is Mission Park Healthcare Center Staffed?
CMS rates Mission Park Healthcare Center's staffing level at 2 out of 5 stars, which is below average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 43%, compared to the California average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care. RN turnover specifically is 75%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.
What Have Inspectors Found at Mission Park Healthcare Center?
State health inspectors documented 14 deficiencies at Mission Park Healthcare Center during 2019 to 2024. These included: 14 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates Mission Park Healthcare Center?
Mission Park Healthcare Center is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 138 certified beds and approximately 128 residents (about 93% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in Santa Barbara, California.
How Does Mission Park Healthcare Center Compare to Other California Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in California, Mission Park Healthcare Center's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (43%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (5 stars) is much above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Mission Park Healthcare Center?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the below-average staffing rating.
Is Mission Park Healthcare Center Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, Mission Park Healthcare Center has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in California. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at Mission Park Healthcare Center Stick Around?
Mission Park Healthcare Center has a staff turnover rate of 43%, which is about average for California nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.
Was Mission Park Healthcare Center Ever Fined?
Mission Park Healthcare Center has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.
Is Mission Park Healthcare Center on Any Federal Watch List?
Mission Park Healthcare Center is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.