Living Waters Hospice
A hospice in Riverside, California 92518
22300 Van Buren Blvd Suite 102, Riverside, California 92518. (909) 464-1205.
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.
- 10 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 mean3
- 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.
What did inspectors find?
10 deficiencies cited in the last three years
The middle of the 28 hospices serving ZIP code 92518 had 4.5.
The last inspection on record was on Jun 19, 2026: a complaint inspection by the state.
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
10 deficiencies in 1 month of the last 36. Last cited May 2025. Most serious: Standard-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.
May 9, 2025: reaccreditation inspection by The Joint Commission10 deficiencies
-
EP Training Program (42 CFR 418.113(d)(1)(iii))
“Observed in HR File Review. In 1 of 9 HR files reviewed, During HR# 6’s HR file review it was noted the organization had not ensured it provided ongoing education and training to all individuals providing services under arrangement that was consistent with their roles and responsibilities in an emergency at least every two years. For example: review of HR# 6/Medical Director’s HR file revealed no documentation of emergency management education and training. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the Administrator and DPCS.”
-
Rights of the patient (42 CFR 418.52(c)(1))
The inspectors’ words, 616 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 4 of 16 patient records reviewed, During RRHV# 1, RRHV# 3, RRHV# 4, and RR# 3’s patient records review it was noted the organization had not ensured staff followed the organization policy Management of Pain, Policy 7.01 that included a RN or Hospice Physician would assess pain at each new report of pain; and a comprehensive pain assessment including location, frequency, intensity, what makes it better, what makes it worse, effects on quality of life, and how often is breakthrough medication needed. For example: review of RRHV# 1’s patient record revealed RRHV# 1 resided in a Nursing Facility and had a fall approximately 66 days prior to the surveyor review of the record with documentation of a right hip fracture and patient/family not wanting any treatment of the right hip fracture. Further review of RRHV# 1’s patient record revealed a SN visit by a Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) on the day of the fall with documentation that Tylenol and ibuprofen ineffective with no pain assessment to include intensity; a LVN visit the day after the fall with documentation of some intermittent pain to right upper leg and positive effects of Tramadol with no pain assessment to include intensity; a LVN visit three days after the fall; and a LVN visit four days after the fall with documentation patient on new fentanyl patch. Further review of RRHV# 1’s patient record revealed the next SN visit was a RN visit seven days after the fall with no documentation of a comprehensive pain assessment to include frequency, severity, and how often breakthrough medication is needed. Review of RRHV# 3’s patient record revealed a SN visit note with documentation that RRHV# 3’s caregiver reported RRHV# 3 was complaining about pain in her back earlier in the day and was given Norco and no pain at the time of the SN visit. However, further review of the SN visit note revealed no documentation regarding the history of the back pain to include intensity, frequency, quality, what makes the pain better, what makes the pain worse, how often breakthrough medication is needed, and effect on quality of life. Review of RRHV# 4’s initial plan of care revealed oxycodone 5mg every 4 hours as needed for pain level 4-6 and morphine sulfate 5mg/0.25ml every 4 hours as needed for severe pain of 7 or greater. Review of RRHV# 4’s start of care RN comprehensive assessment revealed under comprehensive pain assessment documentation “no pain” with a stated intensity tolerance (SIT) of 3/10 with no documentation of history of pain to include severity, quality of pain, what makes it better, what makes it worse, how often is breakthrough medication needed, and the effect on quality of life. Review of RRHV# 4’s SN visit note dated four days after the start of care revealed documentation “Since last nursing visit pt reports intermittent pain to right lower side of lip, per her oncologist its due to a nerve being pressed by a brain tumor, symptom called, numb chin syndrome, pain. Pt has been taking Oxycodone 1/2 a tablet approx. 3 doses a day, has been effective for lower back pain.” However, there is no documentation of the history of the intensity of pain, what makes it better or what makes it worse. Review of RR# 3’s patient record revealed a RN recertification comprehensive assessment with documentation “Patient has intermittent neck pain that is now managed with Norco 5mg-325mg.” However, further review of the RN recertification comprehensive assessment revealed no documentation of history of pain intensity, quality, what makes the pain worse, how often is breakthrough medication needed, and effect on quality of life. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the DPCS.”
-
Content of comprehensive assessment (42 CFR 418.54(c)(8))
The inspectors’ words, 170 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 2 of 3 bereavement records reviewed, During RRBR# 1 and RRBR# 2’s patient records review it was noted the organization had not ensured it reassessed the bereavement risk per organization policy Bereavement Program Policy 3.42, that included upon the patient’s death a condolence call/visit will be made to the family and a bereavement post death assessment will be completed. Review of RRBR# 1’s patient record revealed an initial bereavement assessment dated 30 days prior to the day of death with a bereavement risk score of moderate. Further review of RRBR# 1’s patient record revealed the day of death 23 days prior to the surveyor review of the record with no documentation of a bereavement post death risk assessment. Review of RRBR# 2’s patient record revealed RRBR# 2’s day of death was 184 days prior to the surveyor review of RRBR# 2’s patient record with no documentation of a bereavement post death risk assessment. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the Bereavement Coordinator and DPCS.”
-
Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c))
The inspectors’ words, 276 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 10 of 16 patient records reviewed, During RRHV# 1, RRHV# 2, RRHV# 3, RRHV# 4, RR# 4, RR# 5, RR# 6, RR# 7, RR# 9, and RR# 10’s patient records review it was noted the organization had not ensured the plans of care reflected the patient and family goals identified in the comprehensive assessments. For example: review of RRHV# 3’s start of care comprehensive assessment revealed RRHV# 3 was using Lyrica and Norco for pain. However, review of the initial plan of care and four subsequent updates to the plan of care revealed no pain goal. Review of RRHV# 1, RRHV# 2, RRHV# 4, RR# 4, RR# 5, RR# 6, RR# 7, RR# 9, and RR# 10’s plans of care revealed the same pain goal, Pain will remain at or below pain tolerance level while on hospice services. However, review of the patients’ comprehensive assessment revealed different acceptable levels of pain tolerance. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the DPCS. Observed in Record Review. In 13 of 13 patient records reviewed with Chaplain services, During RRHV# 1, RRHV# 2, RRHV# 3, RRHV# 4, RR# 2, RR# 3, RR# 4, RR# 5, RR# 6, RR# 7, RR# 9, RRDC# 1, and RRDC# 2’s patient records review it was noted the organization had not ensured the plan of care was based on the patient’s goals. For example: review of the patients’ plans of care revealed Chaplain services with a frequency of one time a month to one time a week. Further review of the plans of care revealed no goals for the Chaplain. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the DPCS.”
-
Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(1))
The inspectors’ words, 120 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 13 of 13 patient records reviewed with Chaplain, During RRHV# 1, RRHV# 2, RRHV# 3, RRHV# 4, RR# 2, RR# 3, RR# 4, RR# 5, RR# 6, RR# 7, RR# 9, RRDC# 1, and RRDC# 2’s patient records review it was noted the organization had not ensured the plan of care included all the services needed for the palliation and management of the terminal illness and related conditions. For example: review of the patients’ plans of care revealed Chaplain services with a frequency of one time a month to one time a week. Further review of the plans of care revealed no interventions for the Chaplain. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the DPCS.”
-
Education (42 CFR 418.60(c))
The inspectors’ words, 112 words
“Observed in HR File Review. In 2 of 9 HR files reviewed, During HR# 6 and HR# 9’s HR files review it was noted the organization had not ensured it provided infection education annually per organization policy Infection Control and Safety Universal/Standard Precautions policy 9.02 that included annual infection control education. For example: review of HR# 6/Medical Director’s HR file revealed no documentation of infection control education. Review of HR# 9/Volunteer’s HR file revealed infection control education completed approximately 791 days prior to the surveyor review of HR# 9’s HR file with no further documentation of infection control education. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the Administrator, DPCS, and Volunteer Coordinator.”
-
Counseling services (42 CFR 418.64(d)(1)(iv))
The inspectors’ words, 126 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 2 of 3 bereavement records reviewed, During RRBR# 1 and RRBR# 2’s patient records review it was noted the organization had not ensured it developed a bereavement plan of care. For example: review of RRBR# 2’s patient record revealed RRBR# 2’s day of death was 184 days prior to the surveyor review of the patient’s record. Further review of RRBR# 2’s patient record revealed no documentation of a bereavement plan of care. Review of RRBR# 1’s patient record revealed the day of death 23 days prior to the surveyor review of the record. Further review of RRBR# 1’s patient record revealed no documentation of a bereavement plan of care. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the Bereavement Coordinator and DPCS.”
-
Hospice aide assignments and duties (42 CFR 418.76(g)(1))
The inspectors’ words, 228 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 2 of 12 patient records reviewed with hospice aide, During RRHV# 1 and RR# 7’s patient records review it was noted the organization had not ensured the RN responsible for the hospice aide supervision prepared complete written patient care instructions for the hospice aide. For example: RRHV# 1’s start of care was approximately six months prior to the surveyor review of the record. Review of RRHV# 1’s patient record revealed the patient written care instructions for the hospice aide dated approximately six months prior to the surveyor review of the record with the documentation RRHV# 1 was ambulatory with a walker. Review of RRHV# 1’s patient record revealed RRHV# 1 had a fall with a right hip fracture and was non-ambulatory approximately two months prior to the surveyor review of the record. However, the patient written instructions for the hospice aide was not updated to reflect the right hip fracture or that RRHV# 1 was non-ambulatory. Review of RR# 7’s patient record review revealed RR# 7 had a stage 3 pressure ulcer to the right foot with a foam dressing. Review of RR# 7’s patient written instruction for the hospice aide revealed no documentation of a wound or dressing and no written instructions for the hospice aide if the dressing got wet during bathing. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the DPCS.”
-
Serving the hospice patient and family (42 CFR 418.100(a)(1))
“Observed in Patient Home. In 1 of 4 home visits conducted, During RRHV# 2’s home observation it was noted the organization had not ensured the patient’s right to privacy was respected. For example: during RRHV# 2’s home observation in the Assisted Living Community the nurse began to perform a physical assessment with the blinds open to the community courtyard and the door to RRHV# 2’s room open. This was observed, discussed, and validated with the Director of Patient Care Services.”
-
Content (42 CFR 418.104(a)(3))
The inspectors’ words, 450 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 2 of 16 patient records reviewed, During RRHV# 2 and RR# 5’s patient records review it was noted the organization had not ensured the patient’s record contained information that reflects the patient’s care, treatment, or services. For example: review of RRHV# 2’s patient record revealed an Election of Benefit (EOB) signed and dated by RRHV# 2’s healthcare power of attorney. Further review of the EOB revealed under date of election of benefit no documentation, the date was blank. Review of RR# 5’s start of care RN comprehensive assessment revealed under wound/skin assessment, skin impaired no or yes with no documentation; and under skin turgor, no documentation. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the DPCS and Administrator. Observed in Patient Home. In 1 of 2 home visits conducted with medication reconciliation, During RRHV# 1’s home observation it was noted the organization had not ensured the medication profile was accurate. For example: during RRHV# 1’s home observation at the Nursing Facility it was noted RRHV# 1 had been receiving Ashwagandha 30mg gummies daily since approximately six months prior to the surveyor home observation. Review of RRHV# 1’s medication profile revealed no documentation of Ashwagandha 30 mg gummies. This was observed, reviewed, discussed, and validated with the DPCS. Observed in Record Review. In 1 of 16 patient records reviewed, During RRDC# 1’s patient record review it was noted the organization had not ensured the patient record contained information that reflected the patient’s care, treatment, or services. For example: review of RRDC# 1’s patient record revealed RRDC# 1 was discharged due to extended prognosis approximately 70 days prior to the surveyor review of RRDC# 1’s patient record. Further review of RRDC# 1’s patient record revealed no documentation of a Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage NOMNC. This was reviewed and discussed with the DPCS that was able to locate the NOMNC in an email and printed it and placed it in the patient record. Observed in Record Review. In 1 of 1 patient records reviewed with a bereavement plan of care, During RRBR# 3’s patient record it was noted the organization had not ensured the patient record contained information that reflected the patient’s care, treatment, or services. For example: review of RRBR# 3’s patient record revealed RRBR# 3’s day of death approximately 338 days prior to the surveyor review of RRBR# 3’s patient record. Further review of RRBR# 3’s patient record revealed a bereavement plan of care with interventions to include a Condolence Call and an eight month Call/visit. However, review of RRBR# 3’s patient record revealed no documentation a Condolence Call or an eight month call/visit. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the Bereavement Coordinator and the DPCS.”
All 2 inspections in the last three years
| Date | Visit | What the record says |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 19, 2026 | Complaint inspection by the state | No deficiencies cited |
| May 9, 2025 | Reaccreditation inspection by The Joint Commission | 10 deficiencies cited |
Is it certified?
- Medicare-certified hospice since Jul 8, 2015.
- Ownership: for-profit.
- No 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. deficiency or CMS’s most serious finding: the place’s failure to meet a rule caused, or was likely to cause, serious injury, harm, impairment or death to someone in its care. Source: CMS; 42 CFR 489.3. on record in the last three years.
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): 21.2 nurse care minutes per routine home care day, 10.1% of skilled nursing minutes at weekends and a visit near death for 98.2% of patients who died.
- Where its patients were cared for (Jan 1, 2024 to Dec 31, 2024): 52% at home, 32% in assisted living, 16% in a skilled nursing facility.
CMS, Hospice Provider Data. Released Aug 26, 2026. Updated quarterly.
| Measure | This provider |
|---|---|
| Nurse care minutes per routine home care day | 21.2 min |
| Skilled nursing minutes at weekends | 10.1% |
| Visits near death | 98.2% of patients who died |
Who owns it?
- CMS’s ownership file has no owners listed for this hospice.
CMS, Hospice All Owners and Hospice Enrollments. Released Sep 29, 2026. Updated quarterly.
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 82% would definitely recommend it.
- CMS’s Hospice Care Index: 10 of 10 (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024).
- 95.44% of patients were assessed on all seven of CMS’s measures at the start of care (Oct 1, 2024 to Sep 30, 2025); 51.3% 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 28 hospices CMS’s data show serving patients in ZIP code 92518, where this hospice’s office is, the middle number of deficiencies cited in the last three years was 4.5; this one had 10.
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 |
|---|---|
| Living Waters Hospice This hospice | 10 |
| Vitas Healthcare Corporation of California | 4 |
| Aveeva Hospice | 3 |
| Bristol Hospice Inland Empire, LLC | 3 |
| Advantage Health Systems | 10 |
| Riva Hospice of California | 3 |
| Accentcare Hospice & Palliative Care of California - San Bernardino | 9 |
| Mission Hospice Services of San Diego LLC | 3 |
| Destiny Hospice Care Inc. | 7 |
| Angels on Earth Hospice | 27 |
| Kaiser Foundation Hospital - Riverside Hospice | 3 |
| Tranquil Oaks Hospice Care | 8 |
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.