Hearth Record

Solano Care

A hospice in Vacaville, California 95688

190 S Orchard Avenue, Suite B 123, Vacaville, California 95688. (707) 742-0774.

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 20 deficiencies in 2 months of the last 36. Last cited Oct 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?

20 deficiencies cited in the last three years

The middle of the 25 hospices serving ZIP code 95688 had 7.

The last inspection on record was on Oct 18, 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

20 deficiencies in 2 months of the last 36. Last cited Oct 2024. Most serious: Condition-level. The last 3 years, to Oct 27, 2026.

20 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.

Oct 18, 2024: follow-up inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care2 deficiencies
  • Content of comprehensive assessment (42 CFR 418.54(c)(6))

    The inspectors’ words, 104 words

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 5 (Patient #5) 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 5: Patient has physician’s order for Cipro 500mg by mouth twice daily for 3 days for UTI. Order was written with a start date of 10/14/2024. This remained active on medication profile.”

    Rule L0530. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 99 words

    “Upon patient record review, 2 of 5 (Patient #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 4,5: Patients have physician’s order for PRN oxygen. There is no evidence of oxygen as an intervention in the patients’ plan of care.”

    Rule L0545. Standard-level.

Aug 28, 2024: reaccreditation inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care18 deficiencies
  • IDG, care planning, coordination of services (42 CFR 418.56)

    “Condition of Participation: Interdisciplinary Group, Care Planning, and Coordination of Services. L536”

    Rule L0536. Condition-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 91 words

    “Upon patient record review 1 of 19 records reviewed (Patient #14) did not have evidence in the patient record that the comprehensive assessment identifies the physical, psychosocial, emotional, and spiritual needs related to the terminal illness that must be addressed in order to promote the hospice patient’s well-being, comfort, and dignity throughout the dying process. Patient #14: The record indicated an order on 2/22/24 (SOC) to complete a comprehensive psychosocial assessment with 5 days of admission. There was no evidence this assessment had been completed at the time of the survey.”

    Rule L0524. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 175 words

    “Upon patient record review, 2 of 19 records reviewed (Patient #8, #13) 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 #8: The record indicated on the medication profile two orders for Tylenol/Acetaminophen. The first order was for Tylenol ES 500mg 1-2 tabs po prn pain not to exceed 4gm in 24 hours. The second order was for Acetaminophen 325 mg 2 tabs po Q6hours prn pain/fever 100F. There was no evidence of the maximum dose of 4gm on the acetaminophen q6 hours dose. COS. Patient #13: The record indicated on the medication profile Erythromycin 0.5% 3 grams one application 3 times a day times 14 days for an eye infection. There was no evidence of which eye or eye(s). COS.”

    Rule L0530. Standard-level.

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

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 19 records reviewed (Patient #19) 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 #19: The record indicated a reported fall on 4/5/24. There was no RN follow up until 4/16/24.”

    Rule L0540. Standard-level.

  • Plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(b))

    “Upon client record review, 1 of 19 (Patient #10) did not have evidence that the hospice follows the individualized plan of care developed in in collaboration with the attending physician (if any), the patient or representative, and the primary caregiver in accordance with the patient’s needs if any of them so desire. Patient #10: The record indicated that on admission (07/26/24) the patient chose an attending physician for hospice. There was no evidence on the chart that the chosen physician was involved in the patients care.”

    Rule L0543. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 373 words

    “Upon patient record review, 7 of 19 records reviewed (Patient #1, #2, #3, #4, #7, #11, #14) 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 record indicated the patient had increased agitation on 7/28/24, Seroquel was prescribed 25mg po BID. There was no evidence of an individualized written plan of care to include the goals and interventions for this symptom management issue. COS. Patient #2: The record indicated the patient was positive for Hepatitis C. There was no evidence of an individualized written plan of care for infection control. COS. Patient #3: The record indicated the patient was prescribed Augmentin 500mg one tab po BID X 7 days on 6/6/24. There was no evidence of an individualized written plan of care for this infection. COS. Patient #4: The record indicted the patient had an order for a foley catheter. There was no evidence of an individualized written plan of care for a foley catheter. COS. In addition, the patient was prescribed Morphine ER 15 mg po Q4hours prn, there was no evidence of an individualized written plan of care for pain management. COS. Patient #7: The record indicated in the assessment the patient had a problem of pain control. There was no evidence the plan of care was individualized to include the type of pain assessment necessary and no evidence that the goal for pain control was measurable. COS. Patient #11: The record indicated the patient was on Humulin N 10U SQ before dinner and 24U SQ before breakfast. There was no evidence on the plan of care of how often the patient should be checking the blood sugar and or what levels to report to the hospice nurse/hospice attending physician. COS. Patient #14: The record indicted the patient was on Eliquis at the start of care of 2/22/24. There was no evidence of an individualized care plan regarding bleeding precautions. COS.”

    Rule L0545. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 171 words

    “Upon patient record review, 3 of 19 records reviewed (Patient #4, #8, #13) 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 #4: The record indicated an MD order for a 16F foley with a 10cc balloon. There was no evidence of what type of solution to put in the balloon. COS. Patient #8: The record indicated two MD orders for Tylenol/Acetaminophen. The first order was for Tylenol ES 500mg 1-2 tabs po prn pain not to exceed 4gm in 24 hours. The second order was for Acetaminophen 325 mg 2 tabs po Q6hours prn pain/fever 100F. There was no evidence of the maximum dose of 4gm on the acetaminophen q6 hours dose. COS. Patient #13: The record indicated an MD order for Erythromycin 0.5% 3 grams one application 3 times a day X 14 days for an eye infection. There was no evidence of which eye or eye(s). COS.”

    Rule L0549. Standard-level.

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

    “Upon client record review, 4 of 19 record reviewed (Patient #8, #10, #11, #13) did not have evidence that the IDG in collaboration with the attending physician reviewed, revised and documents the individualized plan as frequently as the patient’s condition requires but no less frequently then every 15 calendar days. Patient #8, #10, #11, #13: The record indicated the last IDT meeting was on 7/31/24. There was no evidence of the next IDT meeting until 16 days later on 8/16/24.”

    Rule L0552. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 180 words

    “Upon patient record review, 3 of 19 records reviewed (Patient #6,#8, #19) 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 #6: The record indicated the daughter raised concern about the patients pain on 8/12/24. There was no evidence the plan of care was individualized to include the type of pain assessment necessary for the patients memory loss and inability to communicate. There was no evidence of goals to achieve pain control that was measurable. COS. Patient #8: The record indicated the start of care was on 6/30/24. The patient had a reported fall on 7/1/24. There was no evidence of a plan of care noting progress towards outcome/goals for this fall incident at the time of the survey. COS. Patient #19: The record indicated the patient had a reported fall on 4/5/24. There was no evidence of a plan of care noting progress towards outcome/goals for this fall incident at the time of the survey. COS.”

    Rule L0553. Standard-level.

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

    “Upon client record review, 1 of 19 (Patient #14) did not have evidence that the IDG ensures that the care and services are provided in accordance with the plan of care. Patient #14: The record indicated an MD order for MSW on 2/22/24 (SOC) to complete a comprehensive psychosocial assessment within 5 days of admission. There was no evidence the order was followed and assessment was completed.”

    Rule L0555. Standard-level.

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

    “Upon patient record review 1 of 19 (Patient #17) 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 #17: The record indicted a fall was reported on 6/12/24 @ 5:18pm requesting help between 6:30 pm - 7:00 pm to help her mom get up to the toilet. There was no evidence of a follow up visit until the time of the death call on 6/13/24 at 6:41 pm.”

    Rule L0556. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 286 words

    “Upon patient record review, 4 of 19 records reviewed (Patient #2, #5, #11, #14) 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: The record indicated the patient was on oxygen 2 LPM via NC prn. The care plan was not marked for oxygen safety for the hospice aide. COS. Patient #5: The record indicated an MD order was written on 8/19/24 to keep the HOB up 90 degrees while eating. There was no evidence the hospice aide plan of care was updated to reflect this MD order. COS. In addition, the patient was prescribed Eliquis 2.5 mg po Q Day, there was no evidence of bleeding precautions on the aide plan of care. COS. Patient #11: The record indicated a hoyer lift was ordered on 6/6/24. There was no evidence of the “hoyer lift”/mechanical lift added to the hospice aide care plan. COS. Patient #14: The record indicated the patient was receiving Eliquis at the time of hospice admission on 2/22/24. The Aide Care plan written on 2/23/24 did not have evidence of bleeding precautions. COS.”

    Rule L0625. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 116 words

    “Upon patient record review 2 of 19 records reviewed (Patient #5, #9) 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 #5: The record indicated the aide visits started on 08/06/24, there was an aide supervisory visit due on 8/20/24 and was not completed. Patient #9: The record indicated the aide visits started on 06/25/24, there was an aide supervisory visit due on 7/23/24 and was not completed.”

    Rule L0629. Standard-level.

  • Initial certification of terminal illness (42 CFR 418.102(b))

    The inspectors’ words, 150 words

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 19 (Patient #1) did not have evidence that the medical director or physician designee provides written certification that it is anticipated that the patient’s life expectancy is 6 months or less if the illness runs its normal course. The physician must consider the following when making this determination: • The primary terminal condition • Related diagnosis • Current subjective and objective medical findings • Current medication and treatment orders • Information about the medical management of any of the patient’s conditions unrelated to the terminal illness Patient #1: The record indicated the patient was in her 1st benefit period from 7/26/24 to 10/23/24. The narrative of the certifying physician does not support the clinical findings for a life expectancy as to why the patient has 6 months or less as the narrative was written by the nurse with physician indicating as stated as above.”

    Rule L0667. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 118 words

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 19 (Patient #2) 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 #2: The record indicated the patient was in her second benefit period 7/3/24 to 9/30/24. The narrative of the certifying physician does not support the clinical findings for a life expectancy as to why the patient has 6 month or less with physician only listed the patient diagnosis. In addition, the certifying physician signed on 7/7/24 and there was no verbal certification documented by the RN.”

    Rule L0668. Standard-level.

  • Content (42 CFR 418.104(a)(5))

    “Upon patient client record review, 1 of 19 records reviewed (Patient #10) did not have evidence that each patient record contains Physician certification and recertification of terminal illness. Patient #10: The record indicated that on admission (07/26/24) the patient chose an attending physician for hospice. There was no evidence this physician signed the initial certification.”

    Rule L0676. Standard-level.

  • Content (42 CFR 418.104(a)(6))

    The inspectors’ words, 160 words

    “Upon patient client record review, 4 of 19 records reviewed (Patient #4, #5, #7, #14) did not have evidence that each patient record contains Advance Directives. Patient #4: The record indicated the patient had advance directives and would provide a copy. There was no evidence of advance directive copies on the chart at the time of the survey. Patient #5: The record indicated the patient had a Medical Power of Attorney and would provide a copy There was no evidence of this document on the chart at the time of the survey. Patient #7: The record indicated the patient had a Medical Power of Attorney and would provide a copy There was no evidence of this document on the chart at the time of the survey. Patient #14: The record indicated the patient had a Medical Power of Attorney and would provide a copy There was no evidence of this document on the chart at the time of the survey.”

    Rule L0677. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 97 words

    “Upon client record review, 1 of 19 (Patient #1,2,5) 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 #1, #2, #5: The record indicated a written hospice plan of care was established without consultation with the SNF. There was no evidence of the hospice responsibilities vs the facility staff responsibilities in all of the generic care plans. COS.”

    Rule L0774. Standard-level.

All 2 inspections in the last three years
Inspections on record
DateVisitWhat the record says
Oct 18, 2024Follow-up inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care2 deficiencies cited
Aug 28, 2024Reaccreditation inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care18 deficiencies cited

Is it certified?

  • Medicare-certified hospice since Sep 14, 2021.
  • CMS doesn’t list its type of ownership.
  • 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): 14.3 nurse care minutes per routine home care day, 12.6% of skilled nursing minutes at weekends and a visit near death for 93.6% of patients who died.
  • Where its patients were cared for (Jan 1, 2024 to Dec 31, 2024): 84% at home, 11% in assisted living, 4% 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 day14.3 min
Skilled nursing minutes at weekends12.6%
Visits near death93.6% of patients who died

Who owns it?

  • 3 owners or officers are people: Ronald P Hael (owns 5% or more directly, 100%); Estelita L Carandang (managing employee (on the payroll)); Kristine M Bernardino (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.”
  • In CMS’s survey of family caregivers (Oct 1, 2023 to Sep 30, 2025): 62% rated it 9 or 10 out of 10, and 57% would definitely recommend it.
  • CMS’s Hospice Care Index: 10 of 10 (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024).
  • 75.19% of patients were assessed on all seven of CMS’s measures at the start of care (Oct 1, 2024 to Sep 30, 2025); 18.1% had visits from a nurse or social worker on at least 2 of their last 3 days (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024).
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 25 hospices CMS’s data show serving patients in ZIP code 95688, where this hospice’s office is, the middle number of deficiencies cited in the last three years was 7; this one had 20.
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.