Hearth Record

Anita Hospice, Inc.

A hospice in Orange, California 92868

201 South Anita Drive, Suite 105, Orange, California 92868. (714) 456-9155.

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 14 deficiencies in 1 month of the last 36. Last cited Nov 2023. 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?

14 deficiencies cited in the last three years

The middle of the 75 hospices serving ZIP code 92868 had 8.

The last inspection on record was on Nov 29, 2023: 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

14 deficiencies in 1 month of the last 36. Last cited Nov 2023. Most serious: Standard-level. The last 3 years, to Oct 27, 2026.

14 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.

Nov 29, 2023: initial inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care14 deficiencies
  • Rights of the patient (42 CFR 418.52(c)(4))

    “Upon patient record review, 3 of 8 (Patient #6, 7, 8) did not have evidence that the patient chooses a health care provider, including an attending physician. Patients 6, 7, 8 Election Statement has no space to clarify patient chose physician. The Patient Rights form includes that the patient has the right to choose, but admitting documentation has no prompt or space to verify patient made choice.”

    Rule L0515. Standard-level.

  • Timeframe for completion of assessment (42 CFR 418.54(b))

    “Upon patient record review 1 of 8 (Patient #6) did not have evidence in the patient record that the hospice interdisciplinary group, in consultation with the individual’s attending physician (if any), completed the comprehensive assessment no later than 5 calendar days after the election of hospice care. Patient #6: SOC 4/16/19. The patient refused SC services. The patient refused MSW until 7/14/22. There was no assessment of the psychosocial and spiritual needs within the 5 day time frame as prompts in EMR were left blank.”

    Rule L0523. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 111 words

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 8 (Patient #6) did not have evidence in the patient record that the comprehensive assessment includes a bereavement component which includes the needs of the patient’s family and other individuals focusing on the social, spiritual, and cultural factors that may impact their ability to cope with the patient’s death. Information gathered from the initial bereavement assessment is incorporated into the plan of care and is considered in the bereavement plan of care. Patient #6: Patient refused SC and also refused MSW until 7/14/19. No is no evidence that bereavement was discussed/offered. RNs only reference to bereavement in initial assessment is that patient has adult children.”

    Rule L0531. Standard-level.

  • Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(2))

    The inspectors’ words, 170 words

    “Upon patient record review, 2 of 14 (Patient #2. #3) did not have evidence the plan of care must includes all services necessary for the palliation and management of the terminal illness and related conditions, including the following: • A detailed statement of the scope and frequency of services necessary to meet the specific patient and family needs • The IDG demonstrates a proactive approach in developing each patient’s plan of care by planning ahead for anticipated patient changes and needs. Decisions should reflect the patient/family preferences rather than be solely a response to a crisis. Patient #2: SC order for 1 admission, recert and as needed monthly for spiritual needs. No defined frequency for monthly, cannot be as needed. Patient #3. Initial MSW freq to perform initial assessment thru telehealth, recert and then as needed monthly. No defined frequency for monthly, cannot be as needed. SC freq order for 1 admission / initial assessment thru telehealth and as needed monthly. No defined frequency for monthly, cannot be as needed.”

    Rule L0547. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 123 words

    “Upon patient record review, 2 of 8 (Patient #2, 4) 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: SOC 7/18/22. Caregiver called office 5/31/23 to report no BM. Milk of Mag was administered with no results. Nurse notified MD and received new order to add Senna 8/6 mg po qd. There was no POC update to include related problems/goals/interventions. Patient #4: SOC 8/6/22. Call from PCG 8/21/22 that patient experiencing symptoms of thrush and diarrhea x 3 days. Hospice RN contacted MD and obtained order for Nystatin and Immodium. There was no POC update to include related problems/goals/interventions.”

    Rule L0553. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 206 words

    “Upon client record review, 3 of 8 (Patient #1, 2, 3) did not have evidence that the IDG ensures that the care and services are provided in accordance with the plan of care. Patient #1: Initial Medical Social Worker frequency documented as Initial assessment, evaluate and assess 1x per month and 2x as needed for psychosocial and emotional support and concern and any sudden change in psychosocial status/needs for patient family, PCG. The patient was only seen once by MSW for initial 7/24/22 assessment visit. There were no visits documented for August, September. Patient #2: Initial MSW to perform initial assessment thru telehealth during recertification and then 1 visit as needed monthly. No MSW visits made beyond initial 7/29/22 assessment visit. SC order for 1 admission, recert and as needed monthly for spiritual needs. Patient declined initial SC, but order not updated and no documentation Aug visit offered/declined. Patient #3. Initial MSW freq to perform initial assessment thru telehealth, recert and then as needed monthly,,,,Only documented MSW visits were 7/31, 8/27, 9/27/22. No change to frequency orders. SC freq order for 1 admission / initial assessment thru telehealth ... and as needed monthly... Only SC visit documented was 7/29/22. There were no changes in ordered frequencies.”

    Rule L0555. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 167 words

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 8 (#2) 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 #2: SOC 7/18/22. Initial orders for HA 1/wk. Corresponding HA assignment sheet date 7/18/22 assigned HA 1x/wk. 7/28/22 IDG HA increased frequency to 2x/wk per family request. The HA assignment sheet was not updated by RN. However, HA began providing visits 2x/wk.”

    Rule L0625. Standard-level.

  • Governing body and administrator (42 CFR 418.100(b))

    “Upon personnel record review, 1 of 11 (Personnel #1) did not have evidence that the administrator is a hospice employee and possesses the education and experience required by the governing body. Personnel #1 Administrator job description requires 4 years HC management. Prior experience as administrator with health care group describes responsibilities of preparing, organizing and storing info in paper and/or digital form. When questioned regarding management experience, there was no additional verification offered.”

    Rule L0651. Standard-level.

  • Professional management responsibility (42 CFR 418.100(e))

    The inspectors’ words, 181 words

    “Upon contract review, 1 of 5 (Wound Pro contract) did not have evidence the agreement to furnish any services under arrangement included that the hospice must retain administrative and financial management, and oversight of staff and services for all arranged services, to ensure the provision of quality care. Arranged care/services are supported by written contract/agreement that requires all care/services are: • Authorized by the hospice • Furnished in a safe and effective manner by qualified personnel • Delivered in accordance with the patient’s plan of care Wound Pro Contract: The contract does not specify requirement that services are unrelated to the hospice diagnosis and verified in writing, as unrelated by the Hospice Medical Director, in the rare circumstance that service would therefore be billable to 3rd party payor. Payment is responsibility of hospice provider under the hospice Medicare benefit for care/treatment related to the hospice diagnosis. Neither does the contract verify that the patient will not be billed for any services rendered. There is no Medical Director documentation in clinical records (#2, 4) to support determination that these services are unrelated.”

    Rule L0655. Standard-level.

  • Content (42 CFR 418.104(a)(2))

    The inspectors’ words, 230 words

    “Upon patient client record review, 6 of 8 (Patient #1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8) 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: The election statement does not include choice of physician. There is a separate document that identifies patient’s choice to allow hospice to choose physician. Patient #2: Informed Consent and treatment Authorization includes hospice care effective date of 7/18/22, signed by POA. The space to elect the physician is left blank on this form. A separate Hospice Election form has an effective date of 7/15/22 with signature by patient and signature date of what looks like 7/15/22 with the 5 marked over to be an 8. There is a 3rd form for physician choice. This form defers to hospice and is signed by POA, so L515 is not cited. Patient #3: Informed Consent and treatment authorization form is blank for physician choice. Includes effective date for hospice. There is another form for patient MD choice that patient defers to hospice, so L515 is not cited. There is no separate election form for this record. Patients #6, 7, 8: Election Statement has no space to clarify patient chose physician. The Patient Rights form includes the right, but there is no documentation to confirm patient’s choice.”

    Rule L0673. Standard-level.

  • Content (42 CFR 418.104(a)(7))

    “Upon patient client record review, 3 of 8 (Patient #6, 7, 8) did not evidence that each patient record contains physician orders. Patient Records #6, 7, 8 did not have evidence of physician order for discharge, although visits/documentation stopped abruptly.”

    Rule L0678. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 140 words

    “Upon client record review, 3 of 8 (Patient #6, 7, 8) did not have evidence that if a patient revokes the election of hospice care or is discharged from hospice in accordance with §418.26, the hospice must forward to the patient’s attending physician: • A copy of the hospice discharge summary • The patient’s clinical record, if requested Patient #6 SOC 4/16/19. Last SN note 7/30/19. Last IDG 7/27/19. No further documentation regarding disposition of patient. There is no DC summary to send to MD. Patient #7: SOC 4/19/19. Last SN note 7//26/19. Last IDG 7/27/19. No further documentation regarding disposition of patient. There is no DC summary to send to MD. Patient #8: SOC 6/01/19. Last SN visit note 7/27/19. Last IDG 7/27/19. No further documentation regarding disposition of patient. There is no DC summary to send to MD.”

    Rule L0683. Standard-level.

  • Inpatient care provided under arrangements (42 CFR 418.108(c)(4))

    “Upon inpatient contract review, 1 of 5 (Rowland Convalescent contract) did not have evidence that the inpatient facility has identified an individual within the facility who is responsible for the implementation of the provisions of the agreement. SNF Contract does not include provisions regarding that the facility has identified an individual within the facility who is responsible for the implementation of the provisions of the agreement.”

    Rule L0714. Standard-level.

  • Criminal background checks (42 CFR 418.114(d)(1))

    “Upon personnel record review, 3 of 11 (Personnel #9, 10,11) did not have evidence the hospice obtained a criminal background check on all contracted individuals who have direct patient care and access to patient records. Personnel 9, 10, 11: The agency was unable to obtain criminal background check for contracted personnel before the end of survey.”

    Rule L0795. Standard-level.

The one inspection in the last three years
Inspections on record
DateVisitWhat the record says
Nov 29, 2023Initial inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care14 deficiencies cited

Is it certified?

  • Medicare-certified hospice since Aug 1, 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?

  • CMS hasn’t published nursing time from Medicare claims for this hospice.
Source:

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

Who owns it?

  • 10 owners or officers are people: Marsman Alberto (owns 5% or more directly, 34%); Marsman Alberto (runs it (operational or managerial control), 34%); Christian Alberto (owns 5% or more directly, 33%); Christian Alberto (managing employee (on the payroll), 33%); Kristoffer T Alberto (owns 5% or more directly, 33%); Marsman Alberto (managing employee (on the payroll)); Raafat M Hana (managing employee (under contract), 0%); Raafat M Hana (managing employee (on the payroll), 0%); Kristoffer T Alberto (corporate director); Kristoffer T Alberto (managing employee (on the payroll)).
  • 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 gives no Hospice Care Index for this hospice.
Source:

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

How does it compare nearby?

  • Of the 75 hospices CMS’s data show serving patients in ZIP code 92868, where this hospice’s office is, the middle number of deficiencies cited in the last three years was 8; this one had 14.
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.