Hearth Record

Pinnacle Palliative Services, Inc.

A hospice in Woodland Hills, California 91364

19737 Ventura Blvd Suite 202, Woodland Hills, California 91364. (818) 350-7721.

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 15 deficiencies in 1 month of the last 36. Last cited Jun 2025. 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?

15 deficiencies cited in the last three years

The middle of the 132 hospices serving ZIP code 91364 had 5.

The last inspection on record was on Jul 16, 2025: a follow-up inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care.

2 deficiencies 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

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

15 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.

Jun 4, 2025: reaccreditation inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care15 deficiencies
  • IDG, care planning, coordination of services (42 CFR 418.56)

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

    Rule L0536. Condition-level.

  • Medical director (42 CFR 418.102)

    “Condition of Participation: Medical Director.”

    Rule L0664. Condition-level.

  • Methods for Sharing Information (42 CFR 418.113(c)(4))

    The inspectors’ words, 102 words

    “Upon observation, there was no evidence the Emergency Plan communication plan includes: • A method for sharing information and medical documentation for patients under the hospice’s care, as necessary, with other health care providers to maintain the continuity of care • A means, in the event of an evacuation, to release patient information as permitted under 45 CFR 164.510(b)(1)(ii) • A means of providing information about the general condition and location of patients under the facility’s care as permitted under 45 CFR 164.510(b)(4) There was not evidence of a patient list with patient information about the general condition and location of patients.”

    Rule E0033. Standard-level.

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

    “Upon observation, and home visit (Patient #1,#2,#3) did not have evidence that the patient has the right: • To exercise his or her rights as a patient of the hospice • Have one’s property and person treated with respect • To not be subjected to discrimination or reprisal for exercising his or her rights The staff member’s ID contained only a picture and her name and credentials and no agency name. There was not evidence that patients were able to identify visiting personnel members through agency generated photo identification.”

    Rule L0505. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 178 words

    “Upon patient record review, 2 of 14 records (Patient #3, 9) did not have evidence in the patient record that a review was completed of all prescription and non-prescription medications, including herbal remedies that could affect drug therapy. This review includes, but is not limited to: • Effectiveness of drug therapy • Drug side effects • Actual or potential drug interactions • Duplicate drug therapy • Drug therapy currently associated with laboratory monitoring Patient #3: During home visit noted, the facility had a bottle of Lisinopril which was labeled 40mg, take 1 tab daily. This medication was not on the hospice medication profile. Also the facility had 2 different instructions for Senna (1 prn and 1 daily). The hospice record contained only the daily instructions. And, the facility had 2 different instructions for Vitamin D3 (1 capsule daily, and 1/2 tab daily). The hospice record contained only the 1/2/tab instructions. Patient #9: The medication profile contained Zithromax 250 mg 1 tab daily for 5-7 days. There was not evidence of specific length of time to administer the drug.”

    Rule L0530. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 363 words

    “Upon observation, and record review, 6 of 14 records (Patient #1,#2,#3,#4,#6,#7) did not contain evidence that the hospice has an interdisciplinary group (IDG) or groups composed of individuals who work together to meet the physical, medical, psychosocial, emotional, and spiritual needs of the hospice patients and families facing terminal illness and bereavement. Interdisciplinary group members must provide the care and services offered by the hospice, and the group, in its entirety, must supervise the care and services. Patient #1 The IDG meetings dated 4/15/25, 4/29/25, 5/13/25 and 5/27/25 did not contain evidence of participation by the spiritual care counselor. There was no evidence of documentation in the record of a signature for the IDG review and (if indicated) a revision of the care plan. Patient #2: The IDG meetings for the dates of 5/13/25 and 5/27/25 did not contain evidence of participation by the spiritual care counselor or the medical director. There was no evidence of documentation in the record of a signature for the IDG review and (if indicated) a revision of the care plan. Patient #3: The IDG meetings for the dates of 5/17/25 and 5/27/25 did not contain evidence of participation by the spiritual care counselor or the medical director. There was no evidence of documentation in the record of a signature for the IDG review and (if indicated) a revision of the care plan. Patient #4: The IDG meetings dated 4/27/25, 5/13/25 and 5/27/25 did not contain evidence of participation by the spiritual care counselor. There was no evidence of documentation in the record of a signature for the IDG review and (if indicated) a revision of the care plan. Patient #6: The IDG meetings dated 5/9/25 and 5/27/25 did not contain evidence of participation by the spiritual care counselor. There was no evidence of documentation in the record of a signature for the IDG review and (if indicated) a revision of the care plan. Patient #7: The IDG meetings dated 5/18/25 and 5/27/25 did not contain evidence of participation by the medical director. There was no evidence of documentation in the record of a signature for the IDG review and (if indicated) a revision of the care plan.”

    Rule L0539. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 151 words

    “Upon patient record review, 2 of 14 records (Patient #1,#4) did not have evidence in the patient record that the hospice plan of care includes all services necessary for the palliation and management of the terminal illness and related conditions. Patient #1: Both the social worker and the spiritual care provider were involved with the care of the patients. There was not evidence that the hospice has developed an individualized written plan of care for each patient that reflects patient/family goals and interventions based on the psychosocial and spiritual problems identified in the assessments of the patient and family. Patient #4: The spiritual care provider was involved with the care of the patients. There was not evidence that the hospice has developed an individualized written plan of care for each patient that reflects patient/family goals and interventions based on the spiritual problems identified in the assessments of the patient and family.”

    Rule L0545. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 97 words

    “Upon patient record review, 2 of 14 records (Patient #3,#9) did not have evidence the plan of care must include all services necessary for the palliation and management of the terminal illness and related conditions, including medications and treatments. Patient #3: The facility had a bottle of Lisinopril which was labeled 40mg, take 1 tab daily. There was not evidence of an order in the hospice record. Patient #9: The record contained an order for Zithromax 250 mg 1 tab daily for 5-7 days. There was not evidence of specific length of time to administer the drug.”

    Rule L0549. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 92 words

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 14 records (Patient #11) 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 #11: The patient was discharged for extended prognosis on 3/28/25. There was no evidence of discharge planning, discussion among the IDG or with the patient regarding discharge. Documentation in visit notes as well as IDG narrative discussion has a focus on the patient’s pain, continued decline and need for hospice.”

    Rule L0553. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 353 words

    “Upon client record review, 9 of 14 records (Patient #2,#3,#4,#5,#6,#7,#8,#9,#10) did not have evidence that the IDG ensures that the care and services are provided in accordance with the plan of care. Patient #2: There was not evidence of an order for an initial visit evaluation /assessment for the social worker. The record indicated that an assessment/visit was conducted on 5/14/25. Patient #3: There was not evidence of an order for an initial visit evaluation /assessment for the social worker. The record indicated that an assessment/visit was conducted on 5/18/25. Patient #4: There was not evidence of an order for an initial visit evaluation /assessment for the social worker. The record indicated that an assessment/visit was conducted on 4/28/25. Patient #5: There was not evidence of an order for an initial visit evaluation /assessment for the social worker or the spiritual care provider. The record indicated that a social worker assessment/visit was conducted on 4/29/25, and the spiritual assessment/visit was conducted on 4/30/25. Patient #6: There was not evidence of an order for an initial visit evaluation /assessment for the social worker. The record indicated that an assessment/visit was conducted on 5/10/25. Patient #7: There was not evidence of an order for an initial visit evaluation /assessment for the social worker. The record indicated that an assessment/visit was conducted on 5/19/25. Patient #8: There was not evidence of an order for an initial visit evaluation /assessment for the social worker or the spiritual care provider. The record indicated that a social worker assessment/visit was conducted on 5/15/25, and the spiritual assessment/visit was conducted on 5/16/25. Patient #9: There was not evidence of an order for an initial visit evaluation /assessment for the social worker or the spiritual care provider. The record indicated that a social worker assessment/visit was conducted on 5/11/25, and the spiritual assessment/visit was conducted on 5/12/25. Patient #10: There was not evidence of an order for an initial visit evaluation /assessment for the social worker or the spiritual care provider. The record indicated that a social worker assessment/visit was conducted on 5/16/25, and the spiritual assessment/visit was conducted on 5/17/25.”

    Rule L0555. Standard-level.

  • Level of activity (42 CFR 418.78(e))

    “Upon observation, there was no evidence the annual report documents the use of volunteers providing day to day administrative and/or direct patient care services in an amount that, at a minimum, equals 5 percent of the total patient care hours of all paid hospice employees and contract personnel. There was not a record of the percentage of usage for the year 2024.”

    Rule L0647. Standard-level.

  • Medical director contract (42 CFR 418.102(a))

    “Upon contract review, 1 of 4 contracts (Richard Keech) did not have evidence of a contract to fulfill the role of alternate medical director. There was not evidence that the contract specifically identified an alternate medical director. The contracts for the medical director and for the alternate both indicated Medical Director without evidence of a delegation of authority form or an indication of such on the organizational chart. Corrected on site.”

    Rule L0666. Standard-level.

  • Medical director resposibility (42 CFR 418.102(d))

    “Upon observation, there was no evidence the Medical Director or physician designee has the responsibility for the medical component of the hospice’s patient care program. When interviewed, and asked about oversite, the Medical Director stated that he speaks with the other physician on the phone, but when asked if there was documentation in regards to oversite, he stated that ‘TLC’ might have it. He also stated that IDT was on the phone when needed. When asked about QAPI participation, he was unsure what QAPI was.”

    Rule L0669. Standard-level.

  • Content (42 CFR 418.104(a)(2))

    The inspectors’ words, 120 words

    “Upon patient client record review, 2 of 14 records (Patient #5,#8) did not have evidence that each patient record contains: • Signed election statement in accordance with 418.24 Patient #5: The space on the election of benefit form which was for the date that the patient/representative chose to begin the hospice benefit and initiate care was blank. All documents were signed on 4/28/25 which was the day that care was initiated. Corrected on site. Patient #8: The space on the election of benefit form which was for the date that the patient/representative chose to begin the hospice benefit and initiate care was blank. All documents were signed on 5/14/25 which was the day that care was initiated. Corrected on site.”

    Rule L0673. Standard-level.

  • Authentication (42 CFR 418.104(b))

    The inspectors’ words, 108 words

    “Upon patient client record review, 1 of 14 (Patient #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 #11: The record indicated that the patient was discharged for no longer being appropriate and having an extended prognosis. The record contained both a discharge order and a signed revocation statement and a hospice may not revoke a patient’s benefit for them therefore this information is unclear.”

    Rule L0679. Standard-level.

All 2 inspections in the last three years
Inspections on record
DateVisitWhat the record says
Jul 16, 2025Follow-up inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health CareNo deficiencies cited
Jun 4, 2025Reaccreditation inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care15 deficiencies cited

Is it certified?

  • Medicare-certified hospice since May 19, 2022.
  • 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): 6.1 nurse care minutes per routine home care day, 14.6% of skilled nursing minutes at weekends and a visit near death for 87.5% of patients who died.
  • Where its patients were cared for (Jan 1, 2024 to Dec 31, 2024): 30% at home, 70% in assisted living.
Source:

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

Staffing measures
MeasureThis provider
Nurse care minutes per routine home care day6.1 min
Skilled nursing minutes at weekends14.6%
Visits near death87.5% of patients who died

Who owns it?

  • 5 owners or officers are people: Arman Sardaryan (owns 5% or more directly, 100%); Arman Sardaryan (corporate officer, 100%); Arman Sardaryan (corporate director, 100%); Arman Sardaryan (managing employee (on the payroll), 100%); Richard Charles Keech (managing employee (on the payroll), 0%).
  • 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: 6 of 10 (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024).
  • 88.06% 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 threshold6 of 10

How does it compare nearby?

  • Of the 132 hospices CMS’s data show serving patients in ZIP code 91364, where this hospice’s office is, the middle number of deficiencies cited in the last three years was 5; this one had 15.
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.