Sharp Hospicecare
A hospice in San Diego, California 92123
4000 Ruffin Road, Suite D, San Diego, California 92123. (619) 667-1900.
Watch and the shortlist are kept with a free account, on every device. Your watch list. CMS’s own record is on Care Compare.
The short answer
Record last released by CMS on Oct 23, 2026. We couldn’t read Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ list since Oct 27, 2026: qcor.cms.gov now refuses our reader. This record is as of then.
- 12 deficiencies cited in the last three years
- 3of 5 family caregiver rating
- 10of 10 CMS’s Hospice Care Index
Each figure’s source sits beside it, in its section below.
What these words mean4
- Star ratings
- CMS rates some kinds of place from 1 to 5 stars, more stars meaning better on CMS’s own measures for that kind: for a nursing home, its health inspections, staffing and quality measures. A rating is CMS’s summary of those measures; it doesn’t promise good care. Source: CMS, Care Compare and the Five-Star Quality Rating System.
- Inspection (survey)
- A visit by state inspectors, often unannounced, who check a place against the rules it must meet. For nursing homes and other places Medicare pays, CMS calls these visits surveys: a standard survey of a nursing home comes at least every 15 months, and a complaint survey whenever a complaint calls for one. Source: CMS; 42 CFR 488.308.
- Deficiency, citation, violation
- What inspectors write up when a place didn’t meet a rule: the rule, what they saw, and when. CMS calls it a deficiency; states may say citation or violation. It is the inspectors’ finding, not a court’s, and the place is usually asked for a plan to correct it. Source: CMS, statement of deficiencies (Form CMS-2567); each state’s licensing agency.
- Condition-level deficiency
- For hospices, home health agencies, hospitals and dialysis facilities, CMS writes deficiencies at two levels. Standard is the usual one; condition-level is the more serious, when a problem is serious enough that the provider doesn’t meet a whole condition of taking part in Medicare. Source: CMS, State Operations Manual.
What did inspectors find?
12 deficiencies cited in the last three years
The middle of the 49 hospices serving ZIP code 92123 had 8.
The last inspection on record was on May 8, 2024: a complaint inspection by the state.
4 deficiencies at condition level, the more serious of CMS’s two levels
CMS, QCOR hospice inspection reports. Released Oct 23, 2026. Updated quarterly.
CMS, Hospice ZIP Data. Released Aug 26, 2026. Updated quarterly.
When those deficiencies happened
12 deficiencies in 2 months of the last 36. Last cited Apr 2024. Most serious: Condition-level. The last 3 years, to Oct 27, 2026.
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | Nov | Dec | ||||||||||
| 2024 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2025 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2026 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct |
Hover or focus a month to read it.
Hearth Record drew this from the dates and levels in the source’s own records.
Each deficiency, as cited
Rule titles as CMS’s inspectors cite them, set in sentence case.
CMS, QCOR hospice inspection reports. Released Oct 23, 2026. Updated quarterly.
Apr 26, 2024: follow-up inspection by The Joint Commission1 deficiency
-
Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c))
“Observed in Record Review. In 1 of 3 patient records reviewed, the written plan of care was not based on the patient’s goals and the time frames, settings, and services required to meet those goals. In the chart for RRNHV#1, the wound care goal on the inpatient plan of care was not a goal and read ___has a DTI on coccyx. Apply mepilex, assess each shift, change q 7 days or prn for soiling dislodgement. This was discussed with the Hospice Director present for record review.”
Mar 15, 2024: reaccreditation inspection by The Joint Commission11 deficiencies
-
Plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(b ))
The inspectors’ words, 158 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 13 of 17 patient records reviewed, goals were not measurable and specific to the care of the patient. On RRHV #1, it was noted that goals were not measurable and specific for the patient, examples include family will identify community resources and family will cope with grief. On RRHV #2, it was noted that the goals were not measurable, examples include establish pain goal with patient and verbalize understanding of how to decrease aspiration. On RRHV #3, it was noted that the goals were not specific to the patients’ needs for example patient goals had not been updated since start of care a year ago. On review of RRNHV #1, RRNHV #2, RRNHV #3, RRNHV #4, RRNHV #5, RRNHV #6, RRNHV #7, RRNHV #8, RRNHV #9, and RRNHV #10 goals were also not measurable and specific to the patients. This was reviewed and confirmed with agency leadership who was present for chart reviews.”
-
Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c))
The inspectors’ words, 283 words
“Observed in Record Review. In review of 5 of 10 patient records, it was noted that the organization did not ensure that plan of care goals include outcome measures for specific care activities. For example, during a review of the medical record for HosInptParkview#1, the following goal statement was noted, “Patient’s pain/physical discomfort will be reduced to the level of patient’s stated goal”. However, the goal statement did not include the patient’s stated pain relief goal. Example #2: During a review of the medical record for HosInptBonitaView#1, the following goal statement was noted, “Anxiety will be relieved to level acceptable to patient/caregiver throughout care.” The goal statement did not include a method to measure the effectiveness of problem interventions.Example #3: During a review of medical record for HosInptLakeview#1, the comprehensive assessment identified the presence of a stage 2 coccyx wound with surrounding excoriation requiring daily wound care; and a stage 2 wound at the right great toe and right inner base of toe. The plan of care did not include a goal statement to evaluate the response, to care, treatment, and services related to wound care interventions. Example #4: During a review of the medical record for RRHV#4, the following goal statement was noted, “During nursing visit, patient, caregiver, family establishes goal for pain control.” The goal statement did not include a method to measure the effectiveness of problem interventions. Example #5: During a review of the medical record for RRNHV#12, the following goal statement was noted, “Within 48 hours of complaint of dyspnea, patient verbalizes/exhibits dyspnea relieved to acceptable level.” The goal statement did not include a method to measure the effectiveness of problem interventions. This observation was reviewed with agency leadership.”
-
Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(4))
The inspectors’ words, 342 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 1 out of 17 patient records reviewed, the medication orders were not clear and accurate. On RRNHV #1, the hospice nurse surveyor noted that the physician’s orders in the plan of care documented Senna as PRN. There was no indication for use documented in the physician’s order. The organization’s Medication Policy documented that all prn medications require an indication for use. This finding was reviewed with agency leadership who were present for chart review.Example #2: In 4 of 17 records reviewed, orders for care were not specific to the care provided. On review of RRHV #2, it was noted that there were range orders for SN, Aide, MSW and Chaplain, the aide did not follow the top of the frequency orders and there was no documentation to describe the rationale. On review of RRNHV #1, it was noted that there were range orders for the SN for 2-4 times per month with 5 PRN and the nurse went 6 times during the month and the extra visits did not note the reason for PRN visits. On review of RRNHV #2, it was noted that there were range orders for SN and MSW, it was noted that the MSW had orders for 1-3 visits per month and only made one visit in February and had only one missed visit note documented. On review of RRNHV #5 it was noted that there were range orders for the chaplain for 1-8 visits per month and chaplain saw the patient only 3 times. There was no documentation to describe why 8 visit contacts were not made. This finding was reviewed with agency leadership.Example #3: In 1 of 17 patient records reviewed, it was noted that medications with duplicate therapy was not addressed. On RRNHV #6, it was noted that the patient had duplicate therapy for constipation (lactulose and MiraLAX) that was for PRN use and there was no indication to address when to give each constipation medication. This finding was reviewed with agency leadership who were present for the chart reviews.”
-
Governing body and administrator (42 CFR 418.100(b))
“Observed in Individual Tracer. There was no evidence that the governing body and leadership had established requirements to support patient care treatment and services as evidenced by plan of care policies and procedures implementation and sustained compliance was not established – 418.56 Interdisciplinary group, care planning, and coordination of services.”
-
EP Training Program (42 CFR 418.113(d)(1)(iii))
“Observed in Tracer Activities. In 2 of 3 volunteer records reviewed, the organization had not provided ongoing education and training consistent with their roles and responsibilities in an emergency. Initial training had been provided during volunteer orientation for both volunteers. There was no documentation of additional emergency management training during a 6 year time period. This finding was discussed with the volunteer coordinator at the time of discovery.”
-
Content of comprehensive assessment (42 CFR 418.54(c))
The inspectors’ words, 209 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 8 of 20 patient records reviewed., the hospice nurse surveyor observed that the initial comprehensive assessment did not include all required components. Agency policy for assessments states that a comprehensive assessment is completed in 5 days. On review of RRHV #1, it was noted that the spiritual counselor had not completed a spiritual assessment within the 5 days of admission and no other discipline completed a spiritual assessment that met agency policy for the spiritual assessment. On review of RRNHV #1, it was noted that the spiritual counselor had not completed a spiritual assessment within the 5 days of admission and no other discipline completed a spiritual assessment. On RRNHV #3, it was noted that a spiritual and emotional assessment were not completed within 5 days of admission. On RRNHV #4 it was noted that the spiritual assessment was not completed within 5 days of admission. On RRNHV #6, RRNHV #8 and RRNHV #10 the spiritual assessment was completed within 5 days of admission. This was reviewed with agency leadership. Observed in Record Review. Example #2: During the medical record review for RRNHV#11, it was noted that the initial comprehensive assessment did not include a spiritual assessment. This was reviewed with the agency leadership”
-
Content of comprehensive assessment (42 CFR 418.54(c)(6)(iii))
“Observed in Record Review. In 1 of 10 patient records reviewed, it was noted that the organization did not implement its policy related to pain management. For example, a review of the medical record for HosInptParkview#1, it was noted that the pain assessment completed on day 5 of services for benefit period #3, indicated the patient had a pain level of 10 and Morphine 20mg was administered. The clinical record did not include documentation of an evaluation and patient’s response to the pain intervention. This was reviewed with agency leadership.
”
-
Content of comprehensive assessment (42 CFR 418.54(c)(7))
The inspectors’ words, 99 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 2 out of 20 patient records reviewed, the initial bereavement assessment was not completed. Agency policy is that the MSW will completed the initial assessment. On RRNHV #4, it was noted that the MSW did not complete a bereavement risk assessment on admission. This was reviewed and validated with agency leadership who was present for the chart reviews. Observed in Record Review. Example #2: During the medical record review for RRNHV#11, it was noted that the initial comprehensive assessment did not include an initial bereavement risk assessment. This was reviewed with the agency leadership.”
-
Prevention (42 CFR 418.60(a))
The inspectors’ words, 202 words
“Observed in Individual Tracer. Example #2: During individual tracer activities for, RRHV#4, the clinician utilized a cleaning cloth that did not include a disinfecting agent. In addition, the cleaning cloth did not include the disinfecting agent alcohol. This observation was reviewed with agency leadership. Observed in Patient Home. In 2 of 6 hospice home visits conducted, the organization failed to follow manufacturer instructions for use of disinfectant. Agency policy states that equipment is cleaned with Alcohol wipes. On RRHV #2, it was noted that the RN cleaned her vital sign equipment using Sani-wipes and did not follow agency policy for cleaning or manufacture guidelines for Sani-wipes wet time of 2 minutes before placing the equipment back in her bag. This was discussed with agency leaders. Observed in Patient Home. In 1 of 6 home visits conducted , the hospice nurse surveyor noted that infection control practices were not followed. Agency Hand Hygiene and bag policy states that hands are to be washed before entering bag. On RRHV #2, it was noted during the visit that the nurse had performed patient care and equipment cleaning and entered nursing bag without removing gloves and performing hand hygiene. This finding was reviewed with agency leadership.”
-
Content (42 CFR 418.104(a)(3))
The inspectors’ words, 95 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 1 of 17 patient records reviewed, the patient record did not reflect all medications being used by the patient. During RRHV #1, the Hospice nurse surveyor noted that the patient record did not reflect all medications being used by the patient. During the home visit, the daughter stated she has been using constipation medications for her mother, when I asked what medications, she is using she pulled out Fiber Gummies and Dulcolax Oral Chewable and these medications were not reflected in the patient record. This was reviewed with agency leadership.”
-
Use and mintenance of equipment and supplies (42 CFR 418.106(f)(2))
“Observed in Individual Tracer. Example #2: During a review of patient education information in the home for RRHV#4, RRHV#5, and RRHV#6, an individualized disaster/emergency management plan was not identified. This observation was reviewed with agency leadership. Observed in Patient Home. In 6 of 6 home visits conducted, an individualized emergency management plan was not completed and left in the patient home. During RRHV#1, RRHV #2 and RRHV #3, it was noted there was no individualized emergency created and left in the home. This was discussed with the agency leadership.”
All 16 inspections in the last three years
| Date | Visit | What the record says |
|---|---|---|
| May 8, 2024 | Complaint inspection by the state | No deficiencies cited |
| May 7, 2024 | Complaint inspection by the state | No deficiencies cited |
| Apr 26, 2024 | Follow-up inspection by The Joint Commission | 1 deficiency cited |
| Mar 15, 2024 | Reaccreditation inspection by The Joint Commission | 11 deficiencies cited |
| Feb 23, 2024 | Complaint inspection by the state | No deficiencies cited |
| Feb 14, 2024 | Complaint inspection by the state | No deficiencies cited |
| Feb 14, 2024 | Complaint inspection by the state | No deficiencies cited |
| Feb 14, 2024 | Complaint inspection by the state | No deficiencies cited |
| Feb 7, 2024 | Complaint inspection by the state | No deficiencies cited |
| Feb 6, 2024 | Complaint inspection by the state | No deficiencies cited |
| Feb 5, 2024 | Complaint inspection by the state | No deficiencies cited |
| Dec 21, 2023 | Complaint inspection by the state | No deficiencies cited |
| Dec 21, 2023 | Complaint inspection by the state | No deficiencies cited |
| Dec 21, 2023 | Complaint inspection by the state | No deficiencies cited |
| Dec 21, 2023 | Complaint inspection by the state | No deficiencies cited |
| Dec 21, 2023 | Complaint inspection by the state | No deficiencies cited |
Is it certified?
- Medicare-certified hospice since Dec 10, 1992.
- Ownership: for-profit.
- Cited at For hospices, home health agencies, hospitals and dialysis facilities, CMS writes deficiencies at two levels. Standard is the usual one; condition-level is the more serious, when a problem is serious enough that the provider doesn’t meet a whole condition of taking part in Medicare. Source: CMS, State Operations Manual. in the last three years: it didn’t meet a whole condition of Medicare’s rules.
CMS, Hospice General Information. Released Aug 26, 2026. Updated quarterly.
CMS, QCOR hospice inspection reports. Released Oct 23, 2026. Updated quarterly.
Has anything been proven against it?
- CMS doesn’t publish fines or other penalties for hospices, so none are shown.
- 0 deficiencies cited in the last three years came from inspections that included a complaint investigation.
CMS, QCOR hospice inspection reports. Released Oct 23, 2026. Updated quarterly.
Who does the caring?
- From Medicare claims (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024): 14.1 nurse care minutes per routine home care day, 9.6% of skilled nursing minutes at weekends and a visit near death for 93.5% of patients who died.
- Where its patients were cared for (Jan 1, 2024 to Dec 31, 2024): 85% at home, 7% in assisted living, 4% in a nursing facility, 3% in an inpatient hospice.
CMS, Hospice Provider Data. Released Aug 26, 2026. Updated quarterly.
| Measure | This provider |
|---|---|
| Nurse care minutes per routine home care day | 14.1 min |
| Skilled nursing minutes at weekends | 9.6% |
| Visits near death | 93.5% of patients who died |
Who owns it?
- Sharp Healthcare owns an unstated share directly since May 29, 1991.
- Sharp Healthcare runs it.
- 21 owners or officers are people: Diane Keltner (corporate director); Steven R Allsing (corporate director); Brittany Gardner (corporate director); Valerie Shadroff (corporate officer); Valerie Shadroff (corporate director); Brian S Moore (corporate officer); Brian S Moore (corporate director); Dee M Ammon (corporate director); Ron Oberndorfer (corporate director); Christopher D Howard (corporate officer); Christopher D Howard (managing employee (on the payroll)); Randolph S Lenac (corporate officer); Randolph S Lenac (corporate director); William Evans (corporate officer); William Evans (managing employee (on the payroll)); William R Ayers (corporate director); Odie Goward (corporate director); John Fonseca (corporate director); Carol Ann Wanke (managing employee (on the payroll)); Shakeel Kazi (corporate officer); Patricia Fortin (corporate director).
- No private-equity firm among the owners CMS lists.
- No real-estate investment trust among the owners CMS lists.
CMS, Hospice All Owners and Hospice Enrollments. Released Sep 29, 2026. Updated quarterly.
| Organisation | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharp Healthcare | Owns 5% or more directly | May 29, 1991 | |
| Sharp Healthcare | Runs it (operational or managerial control) | May 29, 1991 |
What do families say?
- Family caregivers rate it 3 of 5 in CMS’s survey (Oct 1, 2023 to Sep 30, 2025): 85% rated it 9 or 10 out of 10, and 88% would definitely recommend it.
- CMS’s Hospice Care Index: 10 of 10 (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024).
- 95.14% of patients were assessed on all seven of CMS’s measures at the start of care (Oct 1, 2024 to Sep 30, 2025); 55.7% had visits from a nurse or social worker on at least 2 of their last 3 days (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024).
CMS, CAHPS Hospice Survey and Hospice Provider Data. Released Aug 26, 2026. Updated quarterly.
| Measure | Rating |
|---|---|
| Family caregiver survey ratingCMS star rating from its survey of patients’ family caregivers, 1 to 5 | 3 of 5 |
| Hospice Care IndexCMS’s Hospice Care Index, 0 to 10 (higher is better): a point for each of ten measures from Medicare claims on which the hospice meets CMS’s threshold | 10 of 10 |
How does it compare nearby?
- Of the 49 hospices CMS’s data show serving patients in ZIP code 92123, where this hospice’s office is, the middle number of deficiencies cited in the last three years was 8; this one had 12.
CMS, Hospice ZIP Data. Released Aug 26, 2026. Updated quarterly.
CMS, QCOR hospice inspection reports. Released Oct 23, 2026. Updated quarterly.
| Place | Deficiencies, 3 years |
|---|---|
| Vitas Healthcare Corporation of California | 3 |
| Sharp Hospicecare This hospice | 12 |
| Avalon Hospice & Palliative Care | 6 |
| Silverado Hospice San Diego | 6 |
| Interim Healthcare San Diego Hospice | Not given |
| Bristol Hospice - San Diego LLC | Not given |
| Bristol Hospice - San Diego | 2 |
| Comfort and Peace Hospice | 11 |
| Suncrest Hospice San Diego | 2 |
| Anchor Hospice & Palliative Care | 6 |
| Absolute Hospice Inc. | 22 |
| Blessed Hospice California Inc. | 11 |
What the record doesn’t say
- CMS doesn’t publish fines or other penalties for hospices, so none are shown.
- Only complaints that led to a citation appear; complaints that didn’t aren’t published.
- CMS ended its Special Focus Program for hospices with serious problems on Feb 14, 2025, so no hospice is marked as one.
- Hospice quality measures have a gap from October 2025: CMS replaced its patient assessment then, and public results from the new one (HOPE) are expected around November 2027.
Sources
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Hospice General Information (yc9t-dgbk).
Released Aug 26, 2026 and checked Oct 27, 2026. Updated quarterly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Hospice Provider Data (252m-zfp9).
Released Aug 26, 2026 and checked Oct 27, 2026. Updated quarterly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, CAHPS Hospice Survey (gxki-hrr8).
Released Aug 26, 2026 and checked Oct 27, 2026. Updated quarterly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, QCOR hospice inspection reports (Hospice Survey Reports - Oct 2021 through Sep 2026.xlsx).
Released Oct 23, 2026 and checked Oct 27, 2026. Updated quarterly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Hospice All Owners (e983965e-1603-4cb8-82b5-c40090e380d1).
Released Sep 29, 2026 and checked Oct 27, 2026. Updated quarterly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Hospice Enrollments (25704213-e833-4b8b-9dbc-58dd17149209).
Released Sep 29, 2026 and checked Oct 27, 2026. Updated quarterly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Hospice ZIP Data (95rg-2usp).
Released Aug 26, 2026 and checked Oct 27, 2026. Updated quarterly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
If you believe something here is wrong, a correction starts with the agency whose record this copies: CMS. CMS’s own record is on Care Compare. If Hearth Record copied something wrongly, it will fix it and log the correction publicly, with its date: how corrections work.
This copy of the record was made on Oct 27, 2026.
From the hospice
The public record above comes first. Anything the hospice adds will appear here, below it, and say who wrote it.
Replies
None. Replies aren’t open yet. When they open, the hospice will be able to answer any finding for free, and the reply will show beside that finding, unedited and dated.
Paid listing
None. Paid listings aren’t open yet. When they open, anything paid for will say “Paid by the hospice”, and paying will never change a finding, a rating or the order of results.