Hearth Record

In Good Hands Hospice, Inc.

A hospice in North Hollywood, California 91606

12158 Hamlin Street, Suite 3, North Hollywood, California 91606. (818) 760-7164.

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 17 deficiencies in 1 month of the last 36. Last cited Mar 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?

17 deficiencies cited in the last three years

The middle of the 289 hospices serving ZIP code 91606 had 4.

The last inspection on record was on Mar 6, 2025: an initial inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care.

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

17 deficiencies in 1 month of the last 36. Last cited Mar 2025. Most serious: Standard-level. The last 3 years, to Oct 27, 2026.

17 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.

Mar 6, 2025: initial inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care17 deficiencies
  • Rights of the patient (42 CFR 418.52(c)(4))

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 14 records reviewed (Patient #8) did not have evidence that the patient chooses a health care provider, including an attending physician. Patient #8: The consent form regarding the patients choice to choose an attending was marked yes I wish to chose but the name of the physician was blank. COS.”

    Rule L0515. Standard-level.

  • Content of comprehensive assessment (42 CFR 418.54(c)(6))

    The inspectors’ words, 262 words

    “Upon patient record review, 3 of 14 records reviewed (Patient #3, #5, #8) did not have evidence in the patient record that a review was completed of all prescription and non-prescription medications, including herbal remedies that could affect drug therapy. This review includes, but is not limited to: • Effectiveness of drug therapy • Drug side effects • Actual or potential drug interactions • Duplicate drug therapy • Drug therapy currently associated with laboratory monitoring Patient #3: During the home visit the medication profile had Carvedilol 3.125mg po BID HTN, the patient and his wife confirmed he was not taking this medication, this medication was also not in the home at the time of the survey. COS. Patient #5: The record indicated the patient was on Tylenol 500g po TID prn for pain 2-5/out of 10 and fever greater than 100 degrees Fahrenheit and had Tylenol Suppositories 650mg PR Q6hours prn fever greater than 101, there was no evidence of not exceeding 4gm in a 24 hour period. COS. During the home visit the medication profile had the following medications: ketoconazole, tylenol tablets, mycozyl AP 2%,ketoconazole shampoo,milk of magnesia, buspirone, quetiapine fumarate, aspirin, tylenol suppository, levsine, morpine sulfate liquid, and zofran listed but not available at the board and care center. In addition, the lorazepan prescription label read lorazepam 2mg/ml 0.25ml SL Q6hours as needed for anxiety /agitation /restlessness. The medication profile had the medication listed at Q4hours prn. COS. Patient #8: The record indicated Miralax Powder 17 grams 1 scoop oral once per day constipation, there was no diluent listed. COS.”

    Rule L0530. Standard-level.

  • Approach to service delivery (42 CFR 418.56(a)(1))

    The inspectors’ words, 104 words

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 14 records reviewed (Patient #7) did not have evidence that a Registered Nurse is designated to ensure continuous assessment of the patient and family’s needs and to coordinate activities with other members of the interdisciplinary group (IDG). The IDG must work together and is responsible for supervision of the care and service for each patient and family. Patient #7: The record indicated the nurse documented on 02/22/25 the family reported increased agitation and pain. The patient caregiver expressed concerns about symptom management. A comfort kit was ordered. There was no continuous assessment and or follow up until 03/01/25.”

    Rule L0540. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 302 words

    “Upon patient record review, 5 of 14 records reviewed (Patient #1, #2, #3, #4, #5) 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 #1: The nursing assessment on 02/15/25 supported the patient was imminent evidenced by decreased LOC, decreased/absence of bowel/bladder function, decreased food and fluid intake, increased fatigue, increased agitation and increased sleeping. There was no evidence of an individualized plan of care to reflect the patient/family goals and interventions based on this problem. COS. Patient #2: Upon admission on 01/04/25 there was no individualized written plan to reflect the patient/family goals and interventions for a full code status and or naming the mortuary of choice. COS. Patient #3: Upon admission on 02/20/25 the patient was taking Eliquis 5mg po BID, there was no individualized written plan to reflect the patient/family goals and interventions for bleeding precautions. COS. Patient #4: Upon admission on 05/13/24 the patient was taking Farxiga 10mg po daily, Jardiance 10mg po daily and Lantus 100U 50Usq daily QHS. There was no evidence of an individualized plan of care to reflect the patient/family goals and interventions based on this diabetic management. In addition, the patient was taking Eliquis 5mg po BID, there was no bleeding precautions in the plan of care. All COS. Patient #5: Upon admission on 08/02/23 there was no individualized written plan to reflect the patient/family goals and interventions regarding their mortuary of choice, there was no mortuary listed at the time of the survey. COS.”

    Rule L0545. Standard-level.

  • Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(4))

    The inspectors’ words, 149 words

    “Upon patient record review, 6 of 14 records reviewed (Patient #3,#4,#5,#6,#7,#8) did not have evidence the plan of care must include all services necessary for the palliation and management of the terminal illness and related conditions, including medications and treatments. Patient #3,4,6,7: The patient had Glucerna ordered. There was no specific order i.e. 2 cans per day. COS. Patient #5: The record indicated an order for Tylenol 500g po TID prn Pain 2-5/out of 10 and Fever greater than 100 degrees Fahrenheit and Tylenol Suppositories 650mg PR Q6hours prn fever greater than 101 degrees Fahrenheit, there was no evidence of not exceeding 4gm in a 24 hour period. COS. In addition, the patient had Glucerna ordered. There was no specific order i.e. 2 cans per day. COS. Patient #8: The order indicated Miralax Powder 17 grams 1 scoop oral once per day constipation, there was no diluent listed. COS.”

    Rule L0549. Standard-level.

  • Review of the plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(d))

    The inspectors’ words, 172 words

    “Upon patient record review, 3 of 14 chart reviewed (Patient #2, #4, #8) did not have evidence that a revised plan of care includes information from the patient’s updated comprehensive assessment and must note the patient’s progress towards outcome/goals from the plan of care. Patient #2: The patient had a platelet count of 52 on 02/21/25 and a WBC of 2 on 02/21/25. There was no revised plan of care based off the comprehensive assessment with any progress towards the outcome/goals for high risk bleeding precautions or an infection prevention plan of care. COS. Patient #4: On 01/28/25 the doctor documented Atrial Fibrillation uncontrolled with increased dizziness and increased fall risk. There was no revised plan of care based off the comprehensive assessment with any progress towards the outcome/goals for fall risk. COS. Patient #8: There was an order on 01/20/25 and 01/21/25 for a foley, there was no evidence of a revised plan of care based on the comprehensive assessment with any progress toward the outcome/goals for the foley catheter. COS.”

    Rule L0553. Standard-level.

  • Coordination of services (42 CFR 418.56(e)(2))

    “Upon patient record review, 1of 14 records reviewed (Patient #2) did not have evidence that the IDG ensures that the care and services are provided in accordance with the plan of care. Patient #2: The record indicated an order for MSW 1 X M. There was no evidence of a MSW visit in the month of February 2025. COS.”

    Rule L0555. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 150 words

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 14 (Patient #8) 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 #8: A hoyer lift was ordered on 01/14/25, there was no evidence the hospice aide care plan was updated to use this equipment. COS.”

    Rule L0625. Standard-level.

  • Supervision of hospice aides (42 CFR 418.76(h)(1))

    The inspectors’ words, 94 words

    “Upon patient record review 1 of 14 charts reviewed (Patient #8) did not have evidence documentation in the patient record that a Registered Nurse made an on-site visit to the patient’s home no less frequently than every 14 days to assess the quality of care and services provided by the hospice aide and to ensure that services ordered by the hospice interdisciplinary group meet the patient’s needs. Patient #8: The aide made the first visit on 12/20/24, the first supervisory visit was on 01/17/25, therefore the aide supervision was not met in 14 days.”

    Rule L0629. Standard-level.

  • Recertification of the terminal illness (42 CFR 418.102(c))

    The inspectors’ words, 144 words

    “Upon patient record review, 2 of 14 charts reviewed (Patient #6, #7) did not have evidence that before the recertification period for each patient, the medical director or physician designee must review the patient’s clinical information and provide written documentation that it is anticipated that the patient’s life expectancy is 6 months or less. Patient #6: The record indicated the patient was in their second benefit period 02/02/25-05/05/25, there was no evidence the medical director reviewed the patients clinical information and provided written documentation that it is anticipated that the patient’s life expectancy is 6 months or less. COS. Patient #7: The record indicated the patient was in their second benefit period 02/07/25-05/07/25, there was no evidence the medical director reviewed the patients clinical information and provided written documentation that it is anticipated that the patient’s life expectancy is 6 months or less. COS.”

    Rule L0668. Standard-level.

  • Content (42 CFR 418.104(a)(2))

    The inspectors’ words, 109 words

    “Upon patient record review, 6 of 14 records reviewed (Patient #1, #2, #4, #6, #7, #8, #10) 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 #1,2,4,6,7,10: The patient elected to receive a copy of non covered items at the time of admission. There was no evidence they received this at the time of the survey. COS. Patient #8: The Hospice Election Statement regarding the patients choice to choose an attending was marked yes I wish to chose but the name of the physician was blank. COS.”

    Rule L0673. Standard-level.

  • Content (42 CFR 418.104(a)(6))

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 14 records reviewed (Patient #5 ) did not have evidence that each patient record contains Advance Directives. Patient #5: The patient’s POA signed legals at the time of the admission on 08/02/23. There was no POA document on the chart at the time of the survey. COS.”

    Rule L0677. Standard-level.

  • Authentication (42 CFR 418.104(b))

    The inspectors’ words, 110 words

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 14 (Patient #8) 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 #8: There were orders on 01/20/25 for a foley placement once per month or prn and another order on 01/21/25 to insert a foley cath 14 french to gravity drainage for urinary retention. There was no evidence of the amount or type of solution to inject in the balloon. COS.”

    Rule L0679. Standard-level.

  • Label dispose storage drugs (42 CFR 418.106(e)(1))

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 14 (Patient #5) did not have evidence that all drugs and biologicals are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional practice and include appropriate usage and cautionary instructions, as well as an expiration date, if applicable. Patient #5 During the home visit at the board and care one of the staff member’s who administered the medications could not read to the surveyor the English directions on the bubble pack for a prn medication, all prescriptions were in English.”

    Rule L0693. Standard-level.

  • Label dispose storage drugs (42 CFR 418.106(e)(2)(i)(B))

    The inspectors’ words, 96 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. Upon observation there was not evidence the hospice discussed appropriate storage of controlled substances to ensure safe and appropriate usage, the liquid ativan was being stored in the freezer at the board and care without a thermometer and stored with food.”

    Rule L0696. Standard-level.

  • Hospice plan of care (42 CFR 418.112(d))

    The inspectors’ words, 114 words

    “Upon patient record review, 2 of 14 records reviewed (Patient #8, #10) did not have evidence that a written hospice plan of care is established and maintained in consultation with SNF/NF or ICF/IID representatives. All hospice care provided is in accordance with this hospice plan of care. Patient #8: There was no evidence the plan of care is established and maintained in consultation with the SNF. COS. Patient #10: There was no evidence the plan of care is established and maintained in consultation with the SNF. COS. In addition, the IDT order for spiritual care on 2/11/25 was noted the spiritual care was declined, the Chaplain made a visit on 2/13/25 without an order.”

    Rule L0773. Standard-level.

  • Hospice plan of care (42 CFR 418.112(d)(1))

    “Upon patient record review, 2 of 14 records reviewed (Patient #8,10) did not have evidence that the hospice plan of care identifies the care and services that are needed and specifically identify which provider (nursing facility or hospice) is responsible for performing the respective functions that have been agreed upon and included in the hospice plan of care. Patient #8, 10: There was no evidence in the plan of care that identified interventions that the facility would provide; only hospice interventions listed on the plan of care. COS.”

    Rule L0774. Standard-level.

The one inspection in the last three years
Inspections on record
DateVisitWhat the record says
Mar 6, 2025Initial inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care17 deficiencies cited

Is it certified?

  • Medicare-certified hospice since Feb 22, 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): 8.6 nurse care minutes per routine home care day, 17.2% of skilled nursing minutes at weekends and a visit near death for 85.7% of patients who died.
  • Where its patients were cared for (Jan 1, 2024 to Dec 31, 2024): 88% at home, 11% in assisted living, 1% 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 day8.6 min
Skilled nursing minutes at weekends17.2%
Visits near death85.7% of patients who died

Who owns it?

  • 4 owners or officers are people: Alina Panossian (owns 5% or more directly, 100%); Alina Panossian (corporate officer, 100%); Alina Panossian (corporate director, 100%); Alina Panossian (managing employee (on the payroll), 100%).
  • 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.”
  • CMS’s Hospice Care Index: 10 of 10 (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024).
  • 95.6% of patients were assessed on all seven of CMS’s measures at the start of care (Oct 1, 2024 to Sep 30, 2025).
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 threshold10 of 10

How does it compare nearby?

  • Of the 289 hospices CMS’s data show serving patients in ZIP code 91606, where this hospice’s office is, the middle number of deficiencies cited in the last three years was 4; this one had 17.
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.