Hearth Record

Advantage Health Systems

A hospice in Riverside, California 92501

4100 Latham Street, Suite E, Riverside, California 92501. (951) 393-1333.

CMS’s own record, on Care Compare

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.

The last 24 months 10 deficiencies in 1 month of the last 36. Last cited Jul 2025. Most serious: Standard-level. Every month

Each figure’s source sits beside it, in its section below.

What these words mean2
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 82 hospices serving ZIP code 92501 had 6.

The last inspection on record was on Jun 22, 2026: a complaint inspection by the state.

Source:

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 Jul 2025. Most serious: Standard-level. The last 3 years, to Oct 27, 2026.

10 deficiencies by month over the last 3 years. Each cell is one month.
JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
2023 NovDec
2024 JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
2025 JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
2026 JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOct

Hover or focus a month to read it.

No visit on record Visited, nothing cited A stronger orange is more serious, on its source’s own levels, read onto four bands: from the least serious it publishes to the most
Source:

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.

Source:

CMS, QCOR hospice inspection reports. Released Oct 23, 2026. Updated quarterly.

Jul 25, 2025: reaccreditation inspection by The Joint Commission10 deficiencies
  • Timeframe for completion of assessment (42 CFR 418.54(b))

    “Observed in Record Review. In 1 of 14 patient records reviewed, the chaplain failed to complete his initial assessment within five days after the election of hospice. The surveyor noted that in HOSRRNHV #2 where the chaplain made two attempts to contact the patient. He stated in both contacts that he would continue to make attempts to contact the patient. An assessment was not completed. This was reviewed and validated with the DPCS.”

    Rule L0523. Standard-level.

  • Content of comprehensive assessment (42 CFR 418.54(c)(7))

    The inspectors’ words, 99 words

    “Observed in Record Review. In 3 of 16 patient records reviewed, the initial bereavement assessment not completed per organizational policy. In the Bereavement Policy 2-010.1 it states that bereavement services will be provided to the family and caregivers of hospice patient at the time of admission. In HOSRRNHV #2 the nephew and niece did not have a bereavement assessment completed. In HOSRRNHV #4 the bereavement assessment was not completed on the daughter and stepdaughter. In HOSRRNHV #6 the son in law that lives with the patent was not assessed for bereavement. This was reviewed and validated with the DPCS.”

    Rule L0531. Standard-level.

  • Patient outcome measures (42 CFR 418.54(e)(2))

    The inspectors’ words, 365 words

    “Observed in Patient Home. In 3 of 4 home visits conducted, the organization failed to maintain accurate Plan of Care. The hospice surveyor observed in HOSRRHV #1 the care plan states to provide wound care to the patient’s right ingrown thumb. The skin assessment shows that the wound care is being provided to the right ingrown large toe. In HOSRRHV #2 the patient had Propranolol HCL 40 mg ordered with a parameter for dosing documented as below HR of 160. When the RN was questioned on this she stated this was a typographical error and that it should read HR below 60. In HOSRRHV #2 the patient was using a Miconazole antifungal powder to the groin area daily and this was not documented on the medication list. In HOSRRHV #3 the following medications were on the medication list but missing from the assisted living, Acetaminophen 650 mg suppository 1 every 6 hours for mild pain, Ativan .05 mg 1 tab every 4 hours as needed for anxiety and agitation, Bisacodyl 10 mg rectal suppository prn for constipation, and Imodium A-D 2 mg 2 tablets as needed for loose stools. This was reviewed and validated with the DPCS. Observed in Record Review. In 2 of 16 patient records reviewed, the organization failed to maintain complete and accurate patient records. In HOSRRNHV #3 5 days prior to the record review the RN documented that the patient had a foley in place and on a visit done one month ago the nurse documented that a Coude tipped catheter was used. This is a female patient and does not have any type of indwelling catheter per the DCPS. In HOSRRNHV #3 there is a care plan for aspiration but there is no documentation in the assessment that the patient has dysphagia or has aspiration issues. In HOSRRDC #2 Oxygen in care plan states 3-4 liters and the Respiratory section in the admission assessment states patient is on 2 Liters. The flow rate in the RN assessment is inaccurate. The DPCS states that at this time the oxygen was not placed on the medication list it was added to the care plan. This was reviewed and validated with the DCPS.”

    Rule L0535. Standard-level.

  • Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c))

    The inspectors’ words, 525 words

    “Observed in Record Review. In 6 of 14 patient records reviewed, the hospice surveyor noted that the agency had not ensured that the goals established on the plans of care included measurable outcomes and individualized as required by regulation. For example in HOSRRHV #1 the pain goals states that the patient will have an acceptable pain level of 3/10 in 8 weeks. An observational pain tool was used and moaning and grimacing were the how the patient showed her pain there is no way to measure a verbal pain level. Per the organizational policy on Pain Assessment 2-032.1 if the patient is unable to communicate pain using the rating scale, is cognitively impaired, the clinician will assess behavioral factors that signal pain or discomfort and include this information in the assessment. In HOSRRNHV #2 the pain goal states to maintain a level of pain that is acceptable. There is no definition of what the patient considers an acceptable level of pain control. A verbal descriptor tool was used to assess pain but a pain goal was not assessed for this patient per agency policy Pain Assessment 2-032.2 that when using a verbal descriptor and pain is assessed the patient’s pain goal needs to be documented. In HOSRRHV #2 the patient had a pain goal that at every visit the nurse would assess pain using a standardized pain scale (numeric) within 8 weeks. The patient’s pain goal had not been assessed and the patient is currently taking Hydrocodone every 4 hours for pain and Roxanol 5 mg for breakthrough pain. In HOSRRHV #4 the nurse used a verbal descriptor to assess for pain but did not enter a pain goal for the patient. In HOSRRNHV #4 the patient had a pain score of 3 and no pain goal was assessed. The care plan states that the patient will verbalize relief from pain from 3/10 to 1/10. This is not the patient’s goal as it was not assessed. Per the Pain Assessment policy an observational goal should have been used. In HOSRRNHV #7 the RN created a care plan for pain to the patient’s lower extremities. The RN did not assess the patient specific pain goal in her assessment. The pain goal states the pain in the lower extremities will be managed and the goal of 4/10 will be met. This was not a patient specific pain goal. This was reviewed and validated with the DPCS. Observed in Record Review. In 1 of 14 patient records reviewed, the organization failed to individualize time frames to meet the care plan goals. In HOSRRHV #1 all of the goal timeframes ended in 8 weeks, this included care plans for pain, anxiety, and nutrition. The nurse surveyor noted during the home visit where the patient was combative and anxious when the HHA was giving her a bath and brushing her teeth. Pain and anxiety had not been addressed as a priority. The patient was also ordered a pureed liquid diet due to aspiration risk during the home visit the spouse stated that he had fed her cake just a few days earlier. This was reviewed and validated with the DPCS.”

    Rule L0545. Standard-level.

  • Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(1))

    The inspectors’ words, 342 words

    “Observed in Record Review. In 1 of 16 patient records reviewed, wound care orders changed and the organization failed to update the most recent orders. In HOSRRNHV #6 the patient had a stage 3 pressure injury on his sacrum and there were no orders for the dressing change for 3 visits in July. The dressing change provided was to cleanse the area with wound cleanser, pat dry, apply medi honey to the area and cover with a bordered gauze. There was no documentation of a signed order for the three visits. This was reviewed and validated with the DPCS. Observed in Record Review. In 1 of 16 patient records reviewed, the organization failed to plan the patient’s care. In HOSRRNHV #1 the patient was on Aspirin 81 mg per day and the RN did not create a care plan addressing the bleeding risk. This was reviewed and validated with the DPCS. Observed in Record Review. In 1 of 16 patient records reviewed, the surveyor noted that duplicate medications had been ordered and the instructions for use were not clear. In HOSRRNHV #1 the patient had Acetaminophen 325mg 2 tab q 6 hrs. as needed for mild pain, Acetaminophen rectal suppository 650 mg every 4 hours as needed for mild pain/fever, Hydrocodone Acetaminophen 5-325 mg 2 tab every 6 hours as needed for severe pain, Hydrocodone Acetaminophen 5-325 mg 1 tab every 6 hrs. as needed for moderate pain, IBU 800 mg 1 every 6 hours for pain, Roxanol 20 mg every 2 hrs. SL as needed for severe pain and SOB, Roxanol 10 mg every 2 hours SL as needed for mod pain and SOB, Roxanol 5 mg every 2 hrs. SL as needed for mild pain/SOB, Tramadol HCL 50 mg 1 tab 3 times per day as needed for pain, and Tylenol extra strength 500 mg 1 tablet every 6 hours as needed for pain. It is not clear when to take one over the others in for the varying levels of pain. This was reviewed and validated with the DPCS.”

    Rule L0546. Standard-level.

  • In-service training (42 CFR 418.76(d))

    “Observed in Tracer Activities. In 6 of 12 HR files reviewed, During the HR tracer the surveyor noted that 3 CHHAs had 11 hours of training. One CHHA had 10 hours of in-service training and two HHAs had 9 hours of in services in the last 12 months. This was reviewed and validated with the DPCS.”

    Rule L0620. Standard-level.

  • Hospice aide assignments and duties (42 CFR 418.76(g)(1))

    “Observed in Record Review. In 1 of 16 patient records reviewed, the organization failed to plan the patient’s care, the aide care plan failed to include specific safety precautions. In HOSRRHV #1 the patient is an aspiration risk per the assessment and is taking in only thick liquids. The aide care plan did not include aspiration precautions. This was reviewed and validated with the DCPS.”

    Rule L0625. Standard-level.

  • Content (42 CFR 418.104(a)(3))

    “Observed in Record Review. In 1 of 14 patient records reviewed, documentation of wound care was not entered into the record per organizational policy. In HOSRRHV #4 there was no documentation of wound care provided 7 days prior to the surveyor reviewing the chart. This was reviewed and validated with the DPCS. .”

    Rule L0674. Standard-level.

  • Content (42 CFR 418.104(a)(7))

    The inspectors’ words, 129 words

    “Observed in Record Review. In 3 of 16 patient records reviewed, wound care not documented per organizational policy law and regulation. In HOSRRNHV #4 two times in July the RN did not document the wound care provided to the patient to the right elbow skin tear and the Left heel stage 3 pressure injury. In HOSRRNHV #6 there was no documentation in the record for wound care documentation on three separate visits in July. The organizational policy states wound care will be provided per the intervention with each visit. In HOSRRNHV #8 in IDT in June the record showed that the providers ordered Midodrine 5 mg po every day due to low BP the medication was not added to medication list. This was reviewed and validated with the DPCS.”

    Rule L0678. Standard-level.

  • Discharge or transfer of care (42 CFR 418.104(e)(2)(i))

    “Observed in Record Review. In 1 of 2 patient records reviewed, the deemed hospice agency did not provide hospital with the discharge summary after the patient revoked and was transferred to a facility. In HOSRRDC #2 the patient revoked hospice and the same day transferred to an inpatient facility. The organization could not provide documentation that the inpatient facility received the discharge summary. This was reviewed and validated with the DPCS.”

    Rule L0683. Standard-level.

All 2 inspections in the last three years
Inspections on record
DateVisitWhat the record says
Jun 22, 2026Complaint inspection by the stateNo deficiencies cited
Jul 25, 2025Reaccreditation inspection by The Joint Commission10 deficiencies cited

Is it certified?

  • Medicare-certified hospice since Feb 14, 2019.
  • Ownership: for-profit.
  • No deficiency or on record in the last three years.
Source:

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.
Source:

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): 17 nurse care minutes per routine home care day, 5.9% of skilled nursing minutes at weekends and a visit near death for 96.3% of patients who died.
  • Where its patients were cared for (Jan 1, 2024 to Dec 31, 2024): 57% at home, 36% in assisted living, 5% in a nursing facility, 2% in a skilled nursing facility.
Source:

CMS, Hospice Provider Data. Released Aug 26, 2026. Updated quarterly.

Staffing measures
MeasureThis provider
Nurse care minutes per routine home care day17.0 min
Skilled nursing minutes at weekends5.9%
Visits near death96.3% of patients who died

Who owns it?

  • 9 owners or officers are people: Emil G Bundang (owns 5% or more directly, 100%); Emil G Bundang (corporate officer, 100%); Emil G Bundang (corporate director, 100%); Emil G Bundang (managing employee (on the payroll), 100%); Ma Lei Corpuz (managing employee (on the payroll), 0%); Maria Cecilia Punay (managing employee (on the payroll), 0%); Ahmad Alazzeh (managing employee (under contract), 0%); Ednaida Tate (managing employee (on the payroll)); Koohzad Karimi (managing employee (under contract), 0%).
  • No private-equity firm among the owners CMS lists.
  • No real-estate investment trust among the owners CMS lists.
Source:

CMS, Hospice All Owners and Hospice Enrollments. Released Sep 29, 2026. Updated quarterly.

What do families say?

  • CMS gives no family caregiver survey rating: “The number of cases is too small to report Star Ratings.”
  • In CMS’s survey of family caregivers (Oct 1, 2023 to Sep 30, 2025): 87% rated it 9 or 10 out of 10, and 84% would definitely recommend it.
  • CMS’s Hospice Care Index: 9 of 10 (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024).
  • 97.74% of patients were assessed on all seven of CMS’s measures at the start of care (Oct 1, 2024 to Sep 30, 2025); 67.4% had visits from a nurse or social worker on at least 2 of their last 3 days (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024).
Source:

CMS, CAHPS Hospice Survey and Hospice Provider Data. Released Aug 26, 2026. Updated quarterly.

Ratings and measures, as published
MeasureRating
Family caregiver survey ratingCMS star rating from its survey of patients’ family caregivers, 1 to 5Not 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 threshold9 of 10

How does it compare nearby?

  • Of the 82 hospices CMS’s data show serving patients in ZIP code 92501, where this hospice’s office is, the middle number of deficiencies cited in the last three years was 6; this one had 10.
Source:

CMS, Hospice ZIP Data. Released Aug 26, 2026. Updated quarterly.

CMS, QCOR hospice inspection reports. Released Oct 23, 2026. Updated quarterly.

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

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.

Source:

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.

How to read a record

Four things every record does, shown on an example record made up for this guide.

An example record, made up for this guide

An example nursing home

Made up for this guide: no real place is shown

Not fully inspected in over two years (CMS flag)

11 health citations at the latest inspection cycle

The state average is 14.3.

Source:

CMS, State and US Averages and Health Deficiencies. Released Oct 8, 2026. Updated monthly.

From the homeNone yet. Replies and paid listings aren’t open, and when they open they will sit here, below the record.

1 of 4

Every fact names its source.

Who published it, when, and how often it changes sit beside each fact, with a link to the agency’s own file.

Sign in

A free account keeps your watch list, shortlists, comparisons and saved searches on every device, and can email you when something you watch changes. Browsing never needs one.