Hospice of Orange County, Inc.
A hospice in Fullerton, California 92835
1440 N Harbor Blvd, Ste 305a, Fullerton, California 92835. (657) 204-9324.
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.
- 23 deficiencies cited in the last three years
- Not rated family caregiver rating
- 9of 10 CMS’s Hospice Care Index
Each figure’s source sits beside it, in its section below.
What these words mean3
- 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?
23 deficiencies cited in the last three years
The middle of the 76 hospices serving ZIP code 92835 had 7.
The last inspection on record was on May 19, 2026: a follow-up inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care.
1 deficiency 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
23 deficiencies in 1 month of the last 36. Last cited Apr 2026. 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 1, 2026: reaccreditation inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care23 deficiencies
-
Patients rights (42 CFR 418.52)
“Condition of Participation: Patient’s Rights. L500”
-
Notice of rights and responsibilities (42 CFR 418.52(a)(1))
“Upon observation, there was no evidence that during the initial assessment visit in advance of furnishing care, the hospice provided the patient and/or family with verbal (meaning spoken) and written notice of the Patient’s Rights and Responsibilities in a language and manner that the patient understands. Patient #6, 13: Patient admission consents/election signed by Medical Director and Designee with reference to Bioethics, but no evidence of legal representative for authorization of service. (Patient #6 has brother who is active in care per MSW and Bereavement assessments).”
-
Notice of rights and responsibilities (42 CFR 418.52(a)(2))
“Upon patient record review, 2 of 15 (Patient #6, 13) did not have evidence that the hospice informed and provided written information to the patient concerning its policies on advance directives, including a description of applicable state law. Patient #6, 13: Patient admission consents/election signed by Medical Director and Designee with reference to Bioethics, but no evidence of legal representative for authorization of service. (Patient #6 has brother who is active in care per MSW and Bereavement assessments).”
-
Notice of rights and responsibilities (42 CFR 418.52(a)(3))
“Upon patient record review, 2 of 15 (Patient #6, 13) did not have evidence that the hospice obtained the patient’s or representative’s signature confirming that they received a copy of the Patient’s Rights and Responsibilities. Patient #6, 13: Patient admission consents/election signed by Medical Director and Designee with reference to Bioethics, but no evidence of legal representative for authorization of service. (Patient #6 has brother who is active in care per MSW and Bereavement assessments).”
-
Exercise of rights/respect for proprty/person (42 CFR 418.52(b)(1)(iii))
“Upon observation, there was no evidence the patient has the right to voice grievances/complaints regarding treatment or care that is (or fails to be) furnished and lack of respect of property by anyone who is furnishing care/service on behalf of the hospice. Patient #6, 13: Patient admission consents/election signed by Medical Director and Designee with reference to Bioethics, but no evidence of legal representative for authorization of service. (Patient #6 has brother who is active in care per MSW and Bereavement assessments).”
-
Exercise of rights/respect for proprty/person (42 CFR 418.52(b)(3))
“Upon patient record review, 2 of 15 (Patient #6 13) did not have evidence that if a state court has not adjudged a patient incompetent, any legal representative designated by the patient in accordance with state law may exercise the patient’s rights to the extent allowed by state law. Patient #6, 13: Patient admission consents/election signed by Medical Director and Designee with reference to Bioethics, but no evidence of legal representative for authorization of service. (Patient #6 has brother who is active in care per MSW and Bereavement assessments).”
-
Rights of the patient (42 CFR 418.52(c)(2))
“Upon client record review, 2 of 15 (Patient #6, 13) did not have evidence that the plan of care included IDG’s documentation of the patient’s or families level of understanding, involvement and agreement with the plan of care. Patient #6, 13: Patient admission consents/election signed by Medical Director and Designee with reference to Bioethics, but no evidence of legal representative for authorization of service. (Patient #6 has brother who is active in care per MSW and Bereavement assessments).”
-
Rights of the patient (42 CFR 418.52(c)(4))
“Upon patient record review, 2 of 15 (Patient #6, 13) did not have evidence that the patient chooses a health care provider, including an attending physician Patient #6, 13: Patient admission consents/election signed by Medical Director and Designee with reference to Bioethics, but no evidence of legal representative for authorization of service. (Patient #6 has brother who is active in care per MSW and Bereavement assessments).”
-
Rights of the patient (42 CFR 418.52(c)(5))
“Upon patient record review, 2 of 15 (Patient #6, 13) did not have evidence of the appropriate documentation for release of confidential information. Patient #6, 13: Patient admission consents/election signed by Medical Director and Designee with reference to Bioethics, but no evidence of legal representative for authorization of service. (Patient #6 has brother who is active in care per MSW and Bereavement assessments).”
-
Rights of the patient (42 CFR 418.52(c)(7))
“Upon patient record review, 2 of 15 (Patient #6, 13) did not have evidence that the patient received information about the services covered under the hospice benefit. Patient #6, 13: Patient admission consents/election signed by Medical Director and Designee with reference to Bioethics, but no evidence of legal representative for authorization of service. (Patient #6 has brother who is active in care per MSW and Bereavement assessments).”
-
Rights of the patient (42 CFR 418.52(c)(8))
“Upon patient record review, 2 of 15 (Patient #6, 13) did not have evidence that the patient received information about the scope of services that the hospice will provide and specific limitations on those services. Patient #6, 13: Patient admission consents/election signed by Medical Director and Designee with reference to Bioethics, but no evidence of legal representative for authorization of service. (Patient #6 has brother who is active in care per MSW and Bereavement assessments).”
-
Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c))
The inspectors’ words, 153 words
“Upon patient record review, 3 of 15 (Patient #6, 7, 8) did not have evidence in the patient record that the hospice has developed an individualized written plan of care for each patient. The plan of care must reflect patient/family goals and interventions based on the problems identified in the initial, comprehensive, and updated comprehensive assessments. The plan of care must include all services necessary for the palliation and management of the terminal illness and related conditions. Patient #6: Patient had order for oxygen 2 LPM prn, Xarelto prescribed, and no related problems, goals or interventions for oxygen therapy/precautions and/or bleeding. Patient #7: Patient prescribed Levetiracetam for epilepsy and Rivaroxaban for DVT prophylaxis, but no related problems, goals or interventions for seizure or bleeding precautions. Patient #8: Patient prescribed Keppra and had G Tube with no problems, goals or interventions related to seizure precautions, nutrition, tube feedings or G-tube maintenance or site care.”
-
Coordination of services (42 CFR 418.56(e)(2))
“Upon client record review, 1 of 15 (Patient #8) did not have evidence that the IDG ensures that the care and services are provided in accordance with the plan of care. Patient #8: 10/13/25 order for ST eval. No visit was made by the ST.”
-
Hospice aide assignments and duties (42 CFR 418.76(g)(1))
The inspectors’ words, 218 words
“Upon patient record review, 4 of 15 (Patient #6, 7, 8, 15) did not have evidence in the patient record that hospice aide assignments and duties are: • Assigned to a specific patient by a registered nurse that is a member of the interdisciplinary group • Written patient care instructions for a hospice aide must be prepared by a Registered Nurse who is responsible for the supervision of a hospice aide as specified under paragraph (h) of 418.76 • There is evidence in the patient record that the plan of care; indicate what tasks are to be done by the Aide and the frequency of these tasks. The use of “PRN” or “per patient choice”, for any task, whether personal care or non-personal care tasks, are not acceptable Patient #6: Patient had order for Oxygen 2 LPM prn, Xarelto prescribed with no related oxygen or bleeding safety precautions on the aide plan of care. Patient #7: Patient prescribed Levetiracetam for epilepsy and Rivaroxaban for DVT prophylaxis with no seizure or bleeding precautions on the aide plan of care. Patient #8: Patient had G Tube with no related reference/alert/precautions on the aide plan of care. Patient #15: Patient assignment includes task of catheter care. There is no other documented evidence of catheter, and none presented in interview for clarification.”
-
Hospice aide assignments and duties (42 CFR 418.76(g)(2))
“Upon patient record review 1 of 15 (Patient #1) did not have evidence documentation in the patient record that a hospice aide provides services that are: • Ordered by the interdisciplinary group • Included in the plan of care • Permitted to be performed under state law by such hospice aide • Consistent with the hospice aide training Patient #1: Hospice Aide Assignment/POC includes task of shower chair every visit- Feb 14, 18, 20, 2026. The hospice aide documented bath in bed in narrative space.”
-
Initial certification of terminal illness (42 CFR 418.102(b))
“Upon patient record review, 3 of 15 (Patient #2, 8, 13) did not have evidence that there is a physician’s brief narrative explanation of the clinical findings that supports a life expectancy of 6 months or less as part of the certification forms, or as an addendum to the certification forms. Patients #2, 8, 13: The initial CTI does not contain a physician’s narrative of clinical findings to support terminal illness. The CTI only listed patient diagnosis along with physician attestation and standard prognosis statement with signature.”
-
Recertification of the terminal illness (42 CFR 418.102(c))
The inspectors’ words, 159 words
“Upon client record review, 3 of 15 (Patient #2, 4, 6) did not have evidence that the physician provides a brief narrative explanation of the clinical findings that supports a life expectancy of 6 months or less as part of the recertification form, or as an addendum to the recertification form. Patients #2: CTI for Benefit Period #2 does not contain a physician’s narrative of clinical findings to support terminal illness. The CTI only listed patient diagnosis along with physician attestation and standard prognosis statement with signature. Patient #4: CTI Benefit periods #5, 6, 7 do not contain a physician’s narrative of clinical findings to support terminal illness. The CTI only listed patient diagnosis along with physician attestation and standard prognosis statement with signature. Patient #6: CTI Benefit period #7 does not contain a physician’s narrative of clinical findings to support terminal illness. The CTI only listed patient diagnosis along with physician attestation and standard prognosis statement with signature.”
-
Content (42 CFR 418.104(a)(2))
“Upon patient client record review, 2 of 15 (Patient #6, 13) did not have evidence that each patient record contains: • Signed copies of the notice of patient rights in accordance with 418.52 • Signed election statement in accordance with 418.24 Patient #6, 13: Patient election of benefit signed by Medical Director and Designee with reference to Bioethics, but no evidence of legal representative for authorization of service. (Patient #6 has brother who is active in care per MSW and Bereavement assessments).”
-
Content (42 CFR 418.104(a)(6))
“Upon patient client record review, 1 of 15 (Patient #6) did not have evidence that each patient record contains Advance Directives. Patient #6: The POLST form is signed by Medical Director and Alt Medical Director as patient representative and by Medical Director as physician.”
-
Authentication (42 CFR 418.104(b))
The inspectors’ words, 264 words
“Upon patient client record review, 9 of 15 (Patient #1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 14, 15) did not have evidence that all entries are legible, clear, complete, and appropriately authenticated and dated in accordance with the organizations policies and procedures and currently accepted standards of practice. Electronic signatures are acceptable as long the hospice is following appropriate safeguards to prevent unauthorized access to the patient records. Patient #1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 14, 15: Patient admission forms including assessment of Advanced Directive status includes questions of : Patient does or does not have advanced directives, and does or does not have POA and subsequently, whether copy is obtained. Records listed include answer of no advanced directives/POA in place, but answers yes to copies obtained. Patient #2: 5/7/25 IDG contains note from SC dated 7/2/25, I, the new chaplain will attempt to coordinate and schedule a visit with the patient to provided spiritual support this month. I, the chaplain will continued to offer spiritual support to the patient. I will continue to monitor the patient spiritual health and update of any changes. Patient #5: Wound care referenced in 1/28/26 RN IDG note was inconsistent with patient assessments, orders/POC. Upon interview with DPCS, she states that information is “typo, a mistake. That is a different patient. Sometimes they get carried away with the copying and pasting”. There was no name or other identifiable information included in the error. Patient #7: Discharge summary references patient had oxygen support but no supportive documentation in patient assessment, plan of care/orders or provided during follow up interview.”
-
Label dispose storage drugs (42 CFR 418.106(e)(2)(i)(A))
“Upon observation, there was no evidence a copy is provided of the hospice written policies and procedures on the management and disposal of controlled drugs to the patient or patient representative and family. Patient #6, 13: Patient admission consents/election signed by Medical Director and Designee with reference to Bioethics, but no evidence of legal representative for authorization of service. (Patient #6 has brother who is active in care per MSW and Bereavement assessments). Both have MSO4 prescribed”
-
Label dispose storage drugs (42 CFR 418.106(e)(2)(i)(B))
The inspectors’ words, 95 words
“Upon observation, there was no evidence the hospice discussed the policies and procedures for managing the safe use and disposal of controlled drugs with the patient or representative and the family in a language and manner that they understand to ensure that these parties are educated regarding the safe use and disposal of controlled drugs. Patient #6, 13: Patient admission consents/election signed by Medical Director and Designee with reference to Bioethics, but no evidence of legal representative for authorization of service. (Patient #6 has brother who is active in care per MSW and Bereavement assessments).”
-
Label dispose storage drugs (42 CFR 418.106(e)(2)(i)(C))
“Upon client record review, 2 of 15 (Patient #6, 13) did not have evidence that the written policies and procedures for managing controlled drugs was provided and discussed. Patient #6, 13: Patient admission consents/election signed by Medical Director and Designee with reference to Bioethics, but no evidence of legal representative for authorization of service. (Patient #6 has brother who is active in care per MSW and Bereavement assessments).”
All 2 inspections in the last three years
| Date | Visit | What the record says |
|---|---|---|
| May 19, 2026 | Follow-up inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care | No deficiencies cited |
| Apr 1, 2026 | Reaccreditation inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care | 23 deficiencies cited |
Is it certified?
- Medicare-certified hospice since Feb 27, 2017.
- 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): 10.1 nurse care minutes per routine home care day, 5.1% of skilled nursing minutes at weekends and a visit near death for 87.5% of patients who died.
- Where its patients were cared for (Jan 1, 2024 to Dec 31, 2024): 60% at home, 40% 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 | 10.1 min |
| Skilled nursing minutes at weekends | 5.1% |
| Visits near death | 87.5% of patients who died |
Who owns it?
- Glenn and Nathalie Marshal Family Trust owns 37.5% directly since Dec 1, 2020; Herman Living Trust Dated 02/20/1997 owns 9.48% directly since Dec 1, 2020.
- 12 owners or officers are people: Amy Bansal (owns 5% or more directly, 37.5%); Liviu A Chindris (owns 5% or more directly, 12.5%); Richard Chamow (owns 5% or more directly, 3.02%); David Herman (corporate officer); David Herman (corporate director); Amy Bansal (corporate officer); Amy Bansal (corporate director); Liviu A Chindris (corporate officer); Pranit Shrestha (managing employee (on the payroll)); Lauren Lasater (managing employee (on the payroll)); Glenn A Marshak (corporate officer); Glenn A Marshak (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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Glenn and Nathalie Marshal Family Trust | Owns 5% or more directly | 37.5% | Dec 1, 2020 |
| Herman Living Trust Dated 02/20/1997 | Owns 5% or more directly | 9.48% | Dec 1, 2020 |
What do families say?
- CMS gives no family caregiver survey rating: “The number of cases is too small to report Star Ratings.”
- CMS’s Hospice Care Index: 9 of 10 (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024).
- 85.71% of patients were assessed on all seven of CMS’s measures at the start of care (Oct 1, 2024 to Sep 30, 2025); 3.1% 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 | Not rated |
| 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 | 9 of 10 |
How does it compare nearby?
- Of the 76 hospices CMS’s data show serving patients in ZIP code 92835, where this hospice’s office is, the middle number of deficiencies cited in the last three years was 7; this one had 23.
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 |
|---|---|
| Hospice of Orange County, Inc. This hospice | 23 |
| Rnplus Hospice Care, Inc. | 1 |
| Adjustable Care Life Inc. | 7 |
| Valhalla Hospice LLC | Not given |
| Providence at Home With Compassus Hospice Care La County | 5 |
| Memorialcare Hospice and Palliative Services | 9 |
| Vitas Healthcare Corporation of California | 3 |
| Accentcare Hospice & Palliative Care of California | 3 |
| Providence at Home With Compassus Hospice Care Orange County | 5 |
| Bristol Hospice-Orange County | 8 |
| Silverado Hospice Inc. | 16 |
| Carechoices Hospice and Palliative Services, LLC | 18 |
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.