Hearth Record

Eternal Life Hospice, Inc.

A hospice in Westlake Village, California 91361

30941 Agoura Road, Suite 112, Westlake Village, California 91361. (805) 953-7273.

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 Feb 2026. 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 66 hospices serving ZIP code 91361 had 5.

The last inspection on record was on Feb 19, 2026: 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 Feb 2026. 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.

Feb 19, 2026: initial inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care14 deficiencies
  • Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c))

    The inspectors’ words, 133 words

    “Upon patient record review, 2 of 16 (Patient #2, 6) 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 #2: 12/8/25 GU problem for patient was not clearly documented in the plan of care with problems/goals/interventions for the management of the suprapubic catheter, only a reference to the policy D-120. Patient #6: Patient admitted with Eliquis prescribed. There were no problems/goals/interventions related to bleeding safety precautions, although interventions did address medication purpose as blood thinner.”

    Rule L0545. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 244 words

    “Upon patient record review, 5 of 16 (Patient #2, 4, 6, 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. Patient #2: 12/9/25 order states MSW monthly and as needed per patient/family request. There is no detailed scope and frequency. Patient #4: 11/4/25 order states SC will visit patient 1x/mo. plus PRN. 11/2/25 MSW each recert period and as needed per patient/ family request. There is no detailed scope and frequency. Patient #6: 4/5/24 order states MSW to evaluate and assess the patient family for needs initial eval for psychosocial counseling and support at the time of recertification and/or 1x/month. There is no detailed scope and frequency. Patient #9: 5/25/24 order states SC and MSW frequency is at time of recert and/or 1x/month or as requested per PCG/family. There is no detailed scope and frequency. Patient #10: 5/13/24 order states MSW and SC to evaluate and assess the patient family needs... at the time of recertification and/or 1x/month. There is no detailed scope and frequency.”

    Rule L0547. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 92 words

    “Upon patient record review, 2 of 16 (Patient #1, 10) 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 #1: 8/27/25 order for triple antibiotic ointment 1 layer topical every other day or prn soiled. No location for application specified. Patient #10: Admitted with Foley catheter 16 Fr. to gravity drainage. The 5/10/24 order to change full system every month using sterile technique does not include the catheter and balloon size.”

    Rule L0549. Standard-level.

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

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 16 (Patient #6) 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: SC documented visit notes 4/16/24 and 5/28/24. IDG meeting notes continued to list SC frequency as declined through 6/24/25 IDG. There was no evidence of an updated plan of care/orders.”

    Rule L0553. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 283 words

    “Upon client record review, 5 of 16 (Patient #1, 2, 4, 6, 10) did not have evidence that the IDG ensures that the care and services are provided in accordance with the plan of care. Patient #1: Patient admitted 8/15/25. Ordered SC frequency at the time of recert and 1/month. SC documented 1/21/26 that patient/cg asked him to come another time. There was no follow up documentation of effort to reschedule, at the time of survey. Patient #2 : Patient admitted 12/8/25 with 16 Fr. suprapubic catheter in place. On 2/3/26 there is a note that states the patient suprapubic catheter 16 French changed during the visit with no physician order. In addition, on 1/12/26 SN note has no reference to injection given that had been ordered on 1/8/26. Upon interview, staff stated she had provided injection #4 that date but perhaps failed to make late entry in record. Patient #4: Patient on service 10/31/25-1/5/26. SC initial evaluation narrative included plan to revisit 1/month. Ordered SC frequency 11/4/25 says once a month plus prn. There was no documented visit after 11/4/25 initial and no documented evidence that December visit declined. Patient #6: Patient on service 4/2/24-6/28/24. The 4/5/24 order SC for spiritual assessment to identify spiritual needs support of patient family and PCG declined at this time. SC documented visit notes 4/16/24 and 5/28/24. IDG meeting notes continued to list SC frequency as declined through 6/24/25 IDG. Patient #10: Patient on service 5/10/24-7/25/24. 5/14/24 order for PT consult. Additional PT visits made in May and June, with subsequent 7/3/24 communication note that says services discontinued - highest functional level achieved. There were no documented orders for visits beyond eval and/or discharge of services.”

    Rule L0555. Standard-level.

  • Counseling services (42 CFR 418.64(d)(1))

    The inspectors’ words, 135 words

    “Upon patient record review, 5 of 16 (Patient #11, 12, 13, 14, 15) did not have evidence the hospice offers bereavement counseling that includes: • Making bereavement services available to the family and other individuals in the bereavement plan of care up to 1 year following the death of the patient. Bereavement counseling also extends to residents of a SNF/NF or ICF/IID when appropriate and identified in the bereavement plan of care • Ensuring that bereavement services reflect the needs of the bereaved • Development of a bereavement plan of care that notes the kind of bereavement services to be offered and the frequency of service delivery Patient #11, 12, 13, 14, 15: There was no documented evidence of bereavement services provided up to 13 months and no clearly documented evidence of declined bereavement services.”

    Rule L0596. Standard-level.

  • Competency evaluation (42 CFR 418.76(c))

    The inspectors’ words, 116 words

    “Upon personnel record review, 2 of 13 (Personnel #2,6) did not have evidence in the personnel file that the following competency assessment was performed by the aide with a patient: (This standard applies to all Hospice Aides providing care/service who are directly employed by the hospice or through a contractual agreement.) Upon observation, the hospice aide competency form utilized by agency only identifies shampoo competency and does not validate all 3 types. Patient #2: There was no documented competency of the hospice aide having completed suprapubic catheter care. This task was listed on the hospice aide assignment. Personnel #6: The hospice aide competency does not verify all 3 types of shampoo, but generally lists shampoo only.”

    Rule L0615. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 168 words

    “Upon patient record review, 4 of 16 (Patient #1, 2, 5, 7) 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 #1, 2, 5: Hospice Aide assignment includes oxygen flow rate, but no oxygen related safety precautions Patient #7: Hospice Aide assignment includes oxygen flow rate, but no Oxygen related safety precautions. No bleeding precautions for patient with Eliquis prescribed.”

    Rule L0625. Standard-level.

  • Hospice aide assignments and duties (42 CFR 418.76(g)(2))

    The inspectors’ words, 91 words

    “Upon patient record review 1 of 16 (Patient #2) did not have evidence documentation in the patient record that a hospice aide provides services that are: • Ordered by the interdisciplinary group • Included in the plan of care • Permitted to be performed under state law by such hospice aide • Consistent with the hospice aide training Patient #2: Hospice Aide assignment included suprapubic care every visit. However, the task was not checked as completed Feb. 1, 4, 8, 11, 2026. (There was no documented evidence of Hospice Aide competency).”

    Rule L0626. Standard-level.

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

    “Upon patient record review 1 of 16 (Patient #7) 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 #7: Upon observation, there was no documented evidence of Hospice Aide supervisory visit 7/2-7/22/24.”

    Rule L0629. Standard-level.

  • Training (42 CFR 418.100(g)(1))

    “Upon personnel record review, 1 of 13 (Personnel #11 ) did not have evidence the hospice employees and contract employees have received orientation on the hospice philosophy. Personnel #11: There is no available documented evidence of hospice philosophy education provided. Physical Therapy visits have been provided to patients.”

    Rule L0661. Standard-level.

  • Content (42 CFR 418.104(a)(3))

    “Upon patient client record review, 1 of 16 (Patient #2) did not have evidence that each patient record contains responses to medications, symptom management, treatments, and services. Patient #2: 1/9/26 SN note, SN documented injection, but no documentation related to patient tolerance. 1/10/26 SN note says Ceftriaxone Injection #2 with no details of patient tolerance.”

    Rule L0674. Standard-level.

  • Authentication (42 CFR 418.104(b))

    The inspectors’ words, 409 words

    “Upon patient client record review, 3 of 16 (Patient #2, 10, 11) 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 #2: 1/8/26 order for Ceftriaxone 2 mg IM x 5 days. SN Visit Note late evening 1/8/26 states “Ceftriaxone 2 mg IM x 5 days for UTI.” but not clear if injection provided. Note largely incomplete. 1/8/26 Upon interview with staff, agency states medication had not been delivered and nurse was unable to administer and nurse failed to document. Admin clarified that injections did not start until 1/9/26. 1/9/26 SN note, SN documented injection, but no documentation related to procedure/site. 1/10/26 SN Note says Ceftriaxone Injection #2 with no details of procedure/site. 1/11/26 SN note says SN administered Rocephin 2G IM on the left glute. Patient tolerated well...1/12/26 SN note has no reference to injection. Upon interview, staff provides text message where nurse noted she had provided injection #4 that date but perhaps failed to make late entry in record. 1/13/26 SN note documented injection provided, but site not included. In addition, on 1/12/26 the nurse visit note stated that the suprapubic catheter 16 Fr was changed on 1/1/26 but did not state who completed the task. Patient #10: Visit note 5/24/24 stated “Foley 16 Fr in place draining clear yellow urine into drainage bag hanging below the level of the bladder and off of the floor. Foley catheter was changed on 5/24/24”. No details of catheter change. 6/5/24 note stated “patient with Foley catheter 16 Fr which I exchanged today due to foley leakage. Using clean technique old foley removed by deflating 10 ml saline balloon. Tip of catheter observed intact upon removal without cause for concern. New 16 Fr Foley catheter inserted without complication using sterile technique and secured with leg strap”. No reference to balloon inflated. 6/12/24 the SN note stated “Foley 16 Fr changed and placed using sterile technique. Noted to be in place draining clear yellow urine into drainage bag hanging below the level of the bladder off of the floor”. No details to the catheter procedure performed. Patient #11: Patient transferred into this agency first benefit period.... CTI narrative inadvertently says transferred to Eternity Hospice rather than Eternal Life Hospice.”

    Rule L0679. Standard-level.

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

    “Upon client record review, 3 of 16 (Patient #4, 5, 6) 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 #4, 5, 6: Upon observation, there was no evidence a discharge summary was sent to the attending physician”

    Rule L0683. Standard-level.

All 2 inspections in the last three years
Inspections on record
DateVisitWhat the record says
Feb 19, 2026Initial inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care14 deficiencies cited
Dec 20, 2023Complaint inspection by the stateNo deficiencies cited

Is it certified?

  • Medicare-certified hospice since Jan 21, 2022.
  • CMS doesn’t list its type of ownership.
  • 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.
  • 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.

Who owns it?

  • 9 owners or officers are people: Aleksandra Dubina (owns 5% or more directly, 100%); Aleksandra Dubina (corporate officer, 100%); Aleksandra Dubina (corporate director, 100%); Aleksandra Dubina (managing employee (on the payroll), 100%); Aleksandra Dubina (runs it (operational or managerial control), 100%); Rachel Duncan (corporate director); Cortni Shearn (corporate director); Shi Tang (corporate director); Manuel R Sacapano (corporate director).
  • 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 66 hospices CMS’s data show serving patients in ZIP code 91361, where this hospice’s office is, the middle number of deficiencies cited in the last three years was 5; 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.