Hearth Record

Mount Sinai Hospice and Palliative Care Inc.

A hospice in Riverside, California 92507

1426 University Avenue, Suite A, Riverside, California 92507. (951) 405-8186.

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 Sep 2024. Most serious: Condition-level. Every month

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?

17 deficiencies cited in the last three years

The middle of the 125 hospices serving ZIP code 92507 had 8.

The last inspection on record was on Nov 7, 2024: a follow-up inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care.

1 deficiency at condition level, the more serious of CMS’s two levels

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 Sep 2024. Most serious: Condition-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.

Sep 27, 2024: reaccreditation inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care17 deficiencies
  • Patients rights (42 CFR 418.52)

    “Condition of Participation: Patient’s Rights. L500”

    Rule L0500. Condition-level.

  • Notice of rights and responsibilities (42 CFR 418.52(a)(2))

    The inspectors’ words, 215 words

    “Upon patient record review, 4 of 14 (Patients #5, 6, 7, 8) 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 #5: In the initial nursing comprehensive assessment, the patient is described as Confused, agitated, minimally responsive, disoriented with slurred speech. This patient signed their own consents. Patient #6: In the nursing comprehensive assessment, the patient is described as oriented to person, minimally responsive, and confused. The patient signed consents. The administrator of B & C home also signed. There is no documentation of a legal decision maker for this patient. Patient #7: In the nursing comprehensive assessment, patient is described as disoriented with anxiety and agitation. The nurse instructed B&C owner on techniques to reorient patient. This patient signed their own consents. The administrator of the B & C home also signed consents. There is no documentation of a legal decision maker for this patient. Patient #8: In the comprehensive nursing assessment, the patient is described as alert to time only with confusion and sundowning. This patient signed their own consents. The administrator of the B & C home also signed consents. There is no documentation of a legal decision maker for this patient.”

    Rule L0503. Standard-level.

  • Notice of rights and responsibilities (42 CFR 418.52(a)(3))

    The inspectors’ words, 212 words

    “Upon patient record review, 4 of 14 (Patients #5, 6, 7, 8) 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 #5: In the initial nursing comprehensive assessment, the patient is described as confused, agitated, minimally responsive, disoriented with slurred speech. This patient signed their own consents. Patient #6: In the nursing comprehensive assessment, the patient is described as oriented to person, minimally responsive, and confused. The patient signed consents. The administrator of B & C home also signed. There is no documentation of a legal decision maker for this patient. Patient #7: In the nursing comprehensive assessment, patient is described as disoriented with anxiety and agitation. The nurse instructed B&C owner on techniques to reorient patient. This patient signed their own consents. The administrator of the B & C home also signed consents. There is no documentation of a legal decision maker for this patient. Patient #8: In the comprehensive nursing assessment, the patient is described as alert to time only with confusion and sundowning. This patient signed their own consents. The administrator of the B & C home also signed consents. There is no documentation of a legal decision maker for this patient.”

    Rule L0504. Standard-level.

  • Exercise of rights/respect for proprty/person (42 CFR 418.52(b)(3))

    The inspectors’ words, 226 words

    “Upon patient record review, 4 of 14 (Patients #5, 6, 7, 8) 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 #5: In the initial nursing comprehensive assessment, the patient is described as confused, agitated, minimally responsive, disoriented with slurred speech. This patient signed their own consents. Patient #6: In the nursing comprehensive assessment, the patient is described as oriented to person, minimally responsive, and confused. The patient signed consents. The administrator of B & C home also signed. There is no documentation of a legal decision maker for this patient. Patient #7: In the nursing comprehensive assessment, patient is described as disoriented with anxiety and agitation. The nurse instructed B&C owner on techniques to reorient patient. This patient signed their own consents. The administrator of the B & C home also signed consents. There is no documentation of a legal decision maker for this patient. Patient #8: In the comprehensive nursing assessment, the patient is described as alert to time only with confusion and sundowning. This patient signed their own consents. The administrator of the B & C home also signed consents. There is no documentation of a legal decision maker for this patient.”

    Rule L0507. Standard-level.

  • Rights of the patient (42 CFR 418.52(c)(5))

    The inspectors’ words, 200 words

    “Upon patient record review, 4 of 14 (Patients #5, 6, 7, 8) did not have evidence of the appropriate documentation for release of confidential information. Patient #5: In the initial nursing comprehensive assessment, the patient is described as confused, agitated, minimally responsive, disoriented with slurred speech. This patient signed their own consents. Patient #6: In the nursing comprehensive assessment, the patient is described as oriented to person, minimally responsive, and confused. The patient signed consents. The administrator of B & C home also signed. There is no documentation of a legal decision maker for this patient. Patient #7: In the nursing comprehensive assessment, patient is described as disoriented with anxiety and agitation. The nurse instructed B&C owner on techniques to reorient patient. This patient signed their own consents. The administrator of the B & C home also signed consents. There is no documentation of a legal decision maker for this patient. Patient #8: In the comprehensive nursing assessment, the patient is described as alert to time only with confusion and sundowning. This patient signed their own consents. The administrator of the B & C home also signed consents. There is no documentation of a legal decision maker for this patient.”

    Rule L0516. Standard-level.

  • Rights of the patient (42 CFR 418.52(c)(7))

    The inspectors’ words, 201 words

    “Upon patient record review, 4 of 14 (Patient #5,6,7,8) did not have evidence that the patient received information about the services covered under the hospice benefit. Patient #5: In the initial nursing comprehensive assessment, the patient is described as confused, agitated, minimally responsive, disoriented with slurred speech. This patient signed their own consents. Patient #6: In the nursing comprehensive assessment, the patient is described as oriented to person, minimally responsive, and confused. The patient signed consents. The administrator of B & C home also signed. There is no documentation of a legal decision maker for this patient. Patient #7: In the nursing comprehensive assessment, patient is described as disoriented with anxiety and agitation. The nurse instructed B&C owner on techniques to reorient patient. This patient signed their own consents. The administrator of the B & C home also signed consents. There is no documentation of a legal decision maker for this patient. Patient #8: In the comprehensive nursing assessment, the patient is described as alert to time only with confusion and sundowning. This patient signed their own consents. The administrator of the B & C home also signed consents. There is no documentation of a legal decision maker for this patient.”

    Rule L0518. Standard-level.

  • Rights of the patient (42 CFR 418.52(c)(8))

    The inspectors’ words, 208 words

    “Upon patient record review, 4 of 14(Patient #5,6,7,8) 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 #5: In the initial nursing comprehensive assessment, the patient is described as confused, agitated, minimally responsive, disoriented with slurred speech. This patient signed their own consents. Patient #6: In the nursing comprehensive assessment, the patient is described as oriented to person, minimally responsive, and confused. The patient signed consents. The administrator of B & C home also signed. There is no documentation of a legal decision maker for this patient. Patient #7: In the nursing comprehensive assessment, patient is described as disoriented with anxiety and agitation. The nurse instructed B&C owner on techniques to reorient patient. This patient signed their own consents. The administrator of the B & C home also signed consents. There is no documentation of a legal decision maker for this patient. Patient #8: In the comprehensive nursing assessment, the patient is described as alert to time only with confusion and sundowning. This patient signed their own consents. The administrator of the B & C home also signed consents. There is no documentation of a legal decision maker for this patient.”

    Rule L0519. Standard-level.

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

    “Upon patient record review 1 of 14 (Patient #8) 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 #8: The patient was admitted 12/02/23. Initial Spiritual care assessment was completed 02/13/24. Initial MSW assessment was completed 12/09/23.”

    Rule L0523. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 109 words

    “Upon patient record review, 10 of 14 (Patients #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) 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 Patients #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10: All patients had oxygen on POC as well as DME, but Oxygen was not on the medication profile.”

    Rule L0530. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 101 words

    “Upon patient record review, 2 of 14 (Patients #8, 10) 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 #8: Patient was admitted 12/02/23. Initial bereavement assessment completed 12/9/23. Patient #10: Patient was admitted 11/26/23. Initial bereavement assessment completed 5/16/24”

    Rule L0531. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 133 words

    “Upon patient record review, 10 of 14 (Patients #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) 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. Patients #1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10: Both SC and MSW visit frequencies are ordered from SOC as 1 time for initial assessment and then prn, there is no evidence of a routine frequency.”

    Rule L0547. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 187 words

    “Upon patient record review, 3 of 14 (Patient #1,5,7) did not have evidence that the IDG ensures that the care and services are provided in accordance with the plan of care. Patient 1: SC saw patient 05/22/24, 06/14/24, 07/09/24,and 08/02/24. There is only an order for PRN visits with no physician order for visit frequency. Patient 5: During the initial spiritual care assessment, SC documents, “The patient expressed feeling socially isolated from friends, family, and their community of faith, with little to no spiritual support.” “I plan to meet with this patient once a month to provide spiritual and emotional support.” The frequencies were not revised to meet patient needs. Visits were made by SC 3/11/24, 04/26/24, 05/22/24, 06/24/24, and 07/26/24 without delineation of it being a prn visit and without physician order for visit. Patient 7: In the initial spiritual care assessment, SC states that “I plan to see patient once a month to provide spiritual and emotional support.” SC did visits for patient on 03/11/24, 04/24/24, 05/15/24, 06/24/24 and 8/24/24. There were no orders for these visits and none were labeled as a PRN visit.”

    Rule L0555. Standard-level.

  • Coordination of services (42 CFR 418.56(e)(3))

    The inspectors’ words, 219 words

    “Upon patient record review 2 of 14 (Patient #4,6) did not have evidence that the IDG ensures that the care and services provided are based on all assessments of the patient and family needs. Patient 4: During the SC initial visit, it was documented that patient was “feeling a lack of spiritual and emotional support and social isolation. He is also lonely. He desires to explore spirituality” There has been no change in SC POC for frequencies to meet the patient’s stated needs. During the initial MSW visit, it was documented that patient had a long history of drug abuse and had used until he was too sick to continue. MSW documented, “Patient has increased anger and guilt about the children and gets very tearful” There was no funeral plan. There are no order for MSW visits to meet the patient’s stated needs. Patient 6: In the initial spiritual care assessment, it states patient “is experiencing profound feelings of isolation, which is her primary spiritual and emotional challenge.” “Regular spiritual care visits will be scheduled to provide her with continuous support.” There is no order for visits for a routine frequency for spiritual care. MSW assessment states patient with no family, no caregiver. States MSW will see patient once per cert period, though no order to change frequency made.”

    Rule L0556. Standard-level.

  • Program scope (42 CFR 418.58(a)(2))

    “Upon observation, there was no evidence the hospice measures, analyzes, and tracks quality indicators, including adverse patient events and other aspects of performance that enable the hospice to assess processes of care, hospice services, and operations. The agencies QAPI program did not include program objectives, patient care disciplines. There was no description of how the program would be administered and coordinated. There was no listed priorities for resolution of problems. There were no scheduled QAPI meetings outside reporting data to the governing body on a quarterly basis.”

    Rule L0562. Standard-level.

  • Program activities (42 CFR 418.58(c)(1)(ii))

    “Upon observation, there was no evidence Quality Assessment and Performance Improvement activities focus on high risk, high volume or problem-prone areas by considering incidence, prevalence, and the severity of problems.”

    Rule L0567. Standard-level.

  • Performance improvement projects (42 CFR 418.58(d)(2))

    “Upon observation, there was no evidence the hospice documents what QAPI projects are being conducted, the reasons for conducting these projects, and the measurable progress achieved on these projects. The QAPI project binder listed the data collected. There was no description of the projects that included the reasons for said projects. The binder did not list measurable progress achieved on these projects.”

    Rule L0573. Standard-level.

  • Content (42 CFR 418.104(a)(2))

    The inspectors’ words, 217 words

    “Upon patient record review, 4 of 14 (Patients #5, 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 #5: In the initial nursing comprehensive assessment, the patient is described as Confused, agitated, minimally responsive, disoriented with slurred speech. This patient signed their own consents. Patient #6: In the nursing comprehensive assessment, the patient is described as oriented to person, minimally responsive, and confused. The patient signed consents. The administrator of B & C home also signed. There is no documentation of a legal decision maker for this patient. Patient #7: In the nursing comprehensive assessment, patient is described as disoriented with anxiety and agitation. The nurse instructed B&C owner on techniques to reorient patient. This patient signed their own consents. The administrator of the B & C home also signed consents. There is no documentation of a legal decision maker for this patient. Patient #8: In the comprehensive nursing assessment, the patient is described as alert to time only with confusion and sundowning. This patient signed their own consents. The administrator of the B & C home also signed consents. There is no documentation of a legal decision maker for this patient.”

    Rule L0673. Standard-level.

All 2 inspections in the last three years
Inspections on record
DateVisitWhat the record says
Nov 7, 2024Follow-up inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health CareNo deficiencies cited
Sep 27, 2024Reaccreditation inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care17 deficiencies cited

Is it certified?

  • Medicare-certified hospice since Oct 13, 2021.
  • Ownership: for-profit.
  • Cited at in the last three years: it didn’t meet a whole condition of Medicare’s rules.
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): 9.9 nurse care minutes per routine home care day, 11% of skilled nursing minutes at weekends and a visit near death for 66.7% of patients who died.
  • Where its patients were cared for (Jan 1, 2024 to Dec 31, 2024): 100% at home.
Source:

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

Staffing measures
MeasureThis provider
Nurse care minutes per routine home care day9.9 min
Skilled nursing minutes at weekends11%
Visits near death66.7% of patients who died

Who owns it?

  • 9 owners or officers are people: Saher Choudry (managing employee (on the payroll), 100%); Saher Choudry (owns 5% or more directly, 50%); Saher Choudry (corporate officer, 50%); Saher Choudry (corporate director, 50%); Hamza Sajjad (owns 5% or more directly, 50%); Hamza Sajjad (corporate officer, 50%); Hamza Sajjad (corporate director, 50%); Hamza Sajjad (managing employee (on the payroll), 50%); Guillermo Castillo (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’s Hospice Care Index: 8 of 10 (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024).
  • 86.05% 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 threshold8 of 10

How does it compare nearby?

  • Of the 125 hospices CMS’s data show serving patients in ZIP code 92507, where this hospice’s office is, the middle number of deficiencies cited in the last three years was 8; 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 28, 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.