Grace Palliative & Hospice Care
A hospice in Sunland, California 91040
8119 Foothill Blvdm Suite 5, Sunland, California 91040. (747) 282-1898.
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.
- 31 deficiencies cited in the last three years
- Not rated family caregiver rating
- 10of 10 CMS’s Hospice Care Index
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?
31 deficiencies cited in the last three years
The middle of the 159 hospices serving ZIP code 91040 had 4.
The last inspection on record was on Nov 3, 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
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
31 deficiencies in 3 months of the last 36. Last cited Nov 2025. Most serious: Condition-level. The last 3 years, to Oct 27, 2026.
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | Nov | Dec | ||||||||||
| 2024 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2025 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2026 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct |
Hover or focus a month to read it.
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.
CMS, QCOR hospice inspection reports. Released Oct 23, 2026. Updated quarterly.
Nov 3, 2025: follow-up inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care3 deficiencies
-
Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c))
The inspectors’ words, 152 words
“Upon patient record review, 1 of 5 (Patient #3) 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 #3: Patient admitted 10/3/25 with Foley catheter in place. Patient pulled Foley out 10/4/25 and SN made PRN visit. SN unsuccessfully attempted to insert new Foley. Visit note included documented to leave the Foley out per MD. However, there were no documented related problems goals and interventions for the Foley while in place and/or regarding being discontinued. No documented evidence that IDG was updated related to prn visit and Foley change in subsequent IDG 10/15, 10/29/25.”
-
Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(4))
The inspectors’ words, 122 words
“Upon patient record review, 1 of 5 (Patient #1) 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: Patient admitted 10/9/25 with multiple wounds. Initial treatment orders for heels and thigh to cleanse with NS or wound spray at each skilled nursing visit. Pat dry. Apply Xeroform dressing to wound bed. Cover with Kerlix and secure with tape as ordered. Instruct PCG on proper wound reinforcement technique and how to identify dressing that is soiled, wet or dislodged. Frequency of wound care orders should be specific and indicate who is to perform wound care on the non SN visit days.”
-
Coordination of services (42 CFR 418.56(e)(2))
The inspectors’ words, 168 words
“Upon patient record review, 2 of 5 (Patient #1, 3) did not have evidence that the IDG ensures that the care and services are provided in accordance with the plan of care. Patient #1: Patient admitted 9/9/25 with 9/9/25 physician order for Referral to wound care specialty group related to multiple wounds. Initial wound care generally included Xeroform. Patient was seen by wound care specialty group 10/18/25, with recommendation for change in treatment to Calcium Alginate for heels and Iodoform for thigh. Changes were transcribed to physician orders. However, subsequent visit notes (10/23 and 10/28/25) continued to document Xeroform dressing, with no reference to updated orders. (Wound group had also documented visits 10/25 and 11/01/25 with recommendations to continue Calcium Alginate treatment.) Patient #3: Patient admitted 10/3/25 with Foley catheter in place. Patient pulled out catheter 10/4/25. SN made prn visit and unsuccessfully attempted to replace Foley catheter. Although there was documented correspondence with physician, there was no documented verbal orders related to catheter, including replacement and/or discontinuing.”
Sep 17, 2025: follow-up inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care13 deficiencies
-
IDG, care planning, coordination of services (42 CFR 418.56)
“Condition of Participation: Interdisciplinary Group, Care Planning, and Coordination of Services. L536”
-
Content of comprehensive assessment (42 CFR 418.54(c))
“Upon patient record review 3 of 5 (Patient #2,4,5) 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 #2,4,5, No evidence of comprehensive assessment for spiritual and psychosocial and no evidence in RN initial assessment of psychosocial or spiritual assessment completed.”
-
Content of comprehensive assessment (42 CFR 418.54(c)(6))
The inspectors’ words, 97 words
“Upon patient record review, 2 of 5(Patient #1,3) 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 #1,3, No evidence of order for oxygen under medication profile. DME has document oxygen concentrator and E tanks with the oxygen order connected to the DME.”
-
Content of comprehensive assessment (42 CFR 418.54(c)(7))
The inspectors’ words, 100 words
“Upon patient record review, 3 of 5 (Patient #1,2,4) 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 #1, No initial bereavement assessment completed. Assessment blank. Patient #2,4, No initial bereavement assessment completed. MSW documented in note as declined.”
-
Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c))
The inspectors’ words, 149 words
“Upon patient record review, 3 of 5 (Patient #1,2,3) 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, RN initial assessment documented patient declined any further MSW, documented patient has extreme anxiety and history of emotional illness. SC documented as no further spiritual care. RN documented mild distress for both MSW and SC. No evidence of care plan addressing these concerns. Patient #2, No care plans identified on IDG dated 8/14/25 and 8/20/25. Patient #3, No problems, goals, interventions on care plans identified for MSW with frequency of monthly visits.”
-
Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(2))
The inspectors’ words, 129 words
“Upon patient record review, 1 of 5 (Patient #3) did not have evidence the plan of care must includes all services necessary for the palliation and management of the terminal illness and related conditions, including the following: • A detailed statement of the scope and frequency of services necessary to meet the specific patient and family needs • The IDG demonstrates a proactive approach in developing each patient’s plan of care by planning ahead for anticipated patient changes and needs. Decisions should reflect the patient/family preferences rather than be solely a response to a crisis. Patient #3, MSW frequency monthly, every certification and as needed to evaluate which is not a detailed statement of the scope and frequency of services necessary to meet the specific patient and family needs.”
-
Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(5))
“Upon patient record review, 1 of 5 (Patient #2) 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 equipment and supply needs. Patient #2, No evidence of DME documented on plan of care. RN initial assessment documents patient has his own bed, overbed table, walker, shower chair.”
-
Review of the plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(d))
“Upon client record review, 2 of 5 (Patient #1,2) 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 #1, 2, No evidence of MD participation /sign in note in EMR on 8/8/25, 8/20/25.”
-
Coordination of services (42 CFR 418.56(e)(2))
The inspectors’ words, 134 words
“Upon client record review, 3 of 5 (Patient #1,2,4) did not have evidence that the IDG ensures that the care and services are provided in accordance with the plan of care. Patient #1, RN frequency every 14 days. Patient seen by RN 8/8, 8/20 which is 12 days. SN frequency 1x/week. No evidence of weekly visits completed by SN. MSW made a visit on 8/9 without an order, SC made a visit on 8/12 without an order. Patient #2, MSW declined, 8/15/25 assessment note documents in person, unscheduled visit that is declined. No evidence of order for visit or telephone visit. SC declined, 8/19/25 telephone scheduled visits documented as decline. No evidence of order for visit or telephone visit. Patient #4, SN frequency 1x/week, No evidence of SN visit the first week of 9/1/25.”
-
Coordination of services (42 CFR 418.56(e)(5))
“Upon patient record review, 2 of 5 (Patient #3,5) did not have evidence that the IDG shares information on a on-going basis with non-hospice healthcare providers furnishing services unrelated to the terminal illness and related conditions. No evidence in records of sharing of information from wound care agency.”
-
Hospice aide assignments and duties (42 CFR 418.76(g)(2))
The inspectors’ words, 163 words
“Upon patient record review 4 of 5 (Patient #1,2,3,5) 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 #1, Aide frequency 3x/week effective 8/8/25. First Aide visit completed 8/11/25, which is the 2nd week of the frequency. No missed visits noted. Patient #2, Aide frequency 3x/week effective 8/14/25. First Aide visit completed 8/18/25, which is the 2nd week of the frequency. No missed visits noted. Patient #3, Aide care plan directions for Aspiration precaution. No evidence this was completed as it was left blank on 9/16/25 note. Aide frequency 2x/week effective 8/31/25. First aide visit documented on 9/16/25 without any missed visits documented. Patient #5, Aide frequency 2x/week effective 9/8/25. No aide visits documented in the chart and no missed visits noted.”
-
Supervision of hospice aides (42 CFR 418.76(h)(1))
“Upon patient record review 1 of 5 (Patient #2) 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 #2, No evidence of aide supervisory visit completed. RN visit note on 9/12/25 is blank.”
-
Medical director resposibility (42 CFR 418.102(d))
“Upon observation and request, there was no evidence the Medical Director or physician designee has the responsibility for the medical component of the hospice’s patient care program as the Medical Director and Alternate were both unavailable to as they were both in surgery.”
Aug 7, 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. L536”
-
Rights of the patient (42 CFR 418.52(c)(4))
“Upon patient record review, 1 of 14 (Patient #14) did not have evidence that the patient chooses a health care provider, including an attending physician. Patient #14: Patient on service 9/11/24-11/17/24. Patient’s election statement in patient file on start of survey which was signed 9/11/24 had a blank patient choice to choose or not choose attending physician. Agency presented a completed one the next day after informed however, was not in patient chart originally.”
-
Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c))
The inspectors’ words, 206 words
“Upon patient record review, 4 of 14 (Patient #1, 8, 9, 10) 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: 7/12/25 order for oxygen 2l/min PRN. Problems, goals, interventions includes administer supplemental oxygen as prescribed to maintain desired oxygen saturation levels. Desired oxygen saturation levels are not defined in POC/Orders. Patient #8: 6/6/25 order for oxygen 2l/min PRN. Problems, goals, interventions includes administer supplemental oxygen as prescribed to maintain desired oxygen saturation levels. Desired oxygen saturation levels are not defined in POC/Orders. Patient #9: 6/10/25 order for oxygen 2l/min PRN. Problems, goals, interventions includes administer supplemental oxygen as prescribed to maintain desired oxygen saturation levels. Desired oxygen saturation levels are not defined in POC/Orders. Patient #10: 3/7/25 order for oxygen 2l/min PRN. Problems, goals, interventions includes administer supplemental oxygen as prescribed to maintain desired oxygen saturation levels. Desired oxygen saturation levels are not defined in POC/Orders.”
-
Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(2))
The inspectors’ words, 170 words
“Upon patient record review, 2 of 14 (Patient #8,9) 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 #8: MSW frequency monthly, as needed and in every recertification to evaluate which is not a detailed statement of the scope and frequency of services necessary to meet the specific patient and family needs. Patient #9: MSW and SC frequency within 5 days of SOC, monthly, as needed and in every recertification which is not a detailed statement of the scope and frequency of services necessary to meet the specific patient and family needs.”
-
Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(4))
The inspectors’ words, 129 words
“Upon patient record review, 7 of 14 (Patient #2,3,4,7,10,12,14) 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 #2: 7/2/25 order to provide Foley catheter care including placement every SN visit. Patient #3, 4, 7, 10, 12: Patient with wounds and services of specialized wound are service. Wound care orders in hospice plan of care include perform wound care every SN visit. The specific frequency ordered for wound care (including other participants - caregiver and/or wound care contractor)- is not clear, but necessary for coordination and compliance with treatment plan. Patient #14: 9/11/24 Order may drain indwelling pleural catheter 1x/weekly and as needed. As needed is not qualified.”
-
Review of the plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(d))
The inspectors’ words, 140 words
“Upon client record review, 2 of 14 (Patient #7,10) 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 #7: SOC 6/5/25 with MSW services ordered/provided. IDG meetings 6/25, 7/9/25: No evidence of MSW participation, sign in or note in (EMR). 7/23/25 IDG: No evidence of MD participation /sign in or note in EMR. No evidence of MSW participation, sign in or note in EMR Patients #10: 7/23/25 IDG No evidence of MD or MSW participation via signature. No MSW note. 7/6, 6/25/25: No evidence of MSW participation, sign in or note in EMR. A hard copy of attendance roster was provided to surveyor that includes above attendees, although not evident in EMR.”
-
Coordination of services (42 CFR 418.56(e)(2))
The inspectors’ words, 273 words
“Upon client record review, 8 of 14 (Patient #1,3,4,9,10,11,12,14) did not have evidence that the IDG ensures that the care and services are provided in accordance with the plan of care. Patient #1: 7/12/25 order for PT eval. PT recommended 1wk5. 1 additional visit note was documented 7/24/25. No evidence of order obtained for for follow up visit based on PT recommendation. Patient #3: Wound Savers wound care visit reports throughout service documented plan for wound care to be performed 3x/week, with wound care staff performing 1/wk and hospice staff 2/wk and PRN for wound dressing changes. Hospice orders/Plan of Care include wound care to be performed every RN/SN visit, but SN visit frequency is ordered 1/wk. (except for 7/1/25 order for SN 2/wk. week of 7/1-7/5, then 1/week.) Patients #4, 10, 12: Wound Savers wound care visit reports throughout service documented plan for wound care to be performed 3x/week, with wound care staff performing 1/wk. and hospice staff 2/wk. and PRN for wound dressing changes. Hospice orders/Plan of Care include wound care to be performed every RN/SN visit, but SN visit frequency is ordered 1/wk. Patient #9: SOC 6/10/24. Frequency written as monthly, as needed and every recert. Patient was seen monthly except no May 2025 visit. Patient #11: SOC 5/13/25. 5/14/25 MSW initial assessment narrative concludes with plan to visit patient monthly. Order for MSW monthly, as needed and in every recertification to evaluate ... There was no MSW visit in June. No evidence it was refused. Patient #14: SOC 9/11/24. MSW assessment is grossly blank/incomplete, dated 9/13/24 with time in and time out, therefore no evidence visit was actually made.”
-
Coordination of services (42 CFR 418.56(e)(5))
“Upon patient record review, 4 of 14 (Patient #3,4,10,12) did not have evidence that the IDG shares information on a on-going basis with non-hospice healthcare providers furnishing services unrelated to the terminal illness and related conditions. There is no documented evidence that the IDG reviewed and discussed Wound Saver of America recommendations in a coordinated plan of care.”
-
Competency evaluation (42 CFR 418.76(c))
The inspectors’ words, 102 words
“Upon personnel record review, 1 of 13 (Personnel #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.) ·(C) Shampoo, sink, tub, and bed The other subject areas in this section may be evaluated through written examination, oral examination or after observation of a Hospice Aide with a patient. Personnel #6: Hospice Aide competency for shampoo does not specify competency for sink, tub and bed types, but generalized shampoo.”
-
Hospice aide assignments and duties (42 CFR 418.76(g)(1))
The inspectors’ words, 338 words
“Upon patient record review, 4 of 14 (Patient #1,8,9,10) 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: POC order 7/12/25 for oxygen 2lpm. Hospice Aide assignment includes no related reference to oxygen flow rate or safety precautions. Oxygen section blank. Patient #8: POC order 6/6/25 for oxygen 2lpm. Hospice Aide assignment includes no related reference to oxygen flow rate or safety precautions. Oxygen section blank. POC includes 6/6/25 order for mechanical soft diet, thin liquids and aspiration precautions. Hospice Aide assignment says diet as tolerated and other is checked. There is no specification for “other” including consistency ordered. Assignment also includes task to encourage fluids as tolerated if not contraindicated leaving decision making to aide, this needs to be more specific. Patient #9: POC order 6/10/25 for oxygen 2lpm. Hospice Aide assignment includes no related reference to oxygen flow rate or safety precautions. Oxygen section blank. Assignment includes task to encourage fluids as tolerated if not contraindicated. Patient on Plavix with no related bleeding precautions (blank) and medication and history of seizures with no related precautions (blank). Patient #10: POC order 5/28/25 for oxygen 2lpm. Hospice Aide assignment includes no related reference to oxygen flow rate or safety precautions. Includes task to encourage fluids if not contraindicated. Patient has sacral and heel wounds/dressings with no reference in Hospice Aide assignment to notify RN if soiled or bleeding or dislodged.”
-
Governing body and administrator (42 CFR 418.100(b))
The inspectors’ words, 95 words
“Upon personnel record review, 1 of 13 (Personnel #2) did not have evidence the alternate administrator’s personnel record verifies that: • The employee has appropriate education and experience requirements • There is a signed job description for this role • The employee has been orientated to this role Personnel #2: Date of Hire 11/3/23. Job description requires 3-5 years in healthcare management experience. Application and resume do not support this requirement is met. Resume includes positions as Case manager (Nov 22-present); LVN Treatment nurse (May 23-Sept 2023); LVN Treatment nurse/ADON at LTCF May 2022-May 2023.”
-
Content (42 CFR 418.104(a)(2))
The inspectors’ words, 94 words
“Upon patient client record review, 1 of 14 (Patient #14) 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 #14: Patient on service 9/11/24-11/17/24. Patient’s election statement in patient file on start of survey which was signed 9/11/24 had a blank date of election and blank patient choice to choose or not choose attending physician. Agency presented a completed one the next day after informed however, was not in patient chart originally.”
-
Authentication (42 CFR 418.104(b))
The inspectors’ words, 115 words
“Upon patient client record review, 3 of 14 (Patient #3,10,12) 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 #3: SN note 7/29/25: “IDT withheld”. Upon interview staff inadvertently meant IDT held. Patient #10, 12: Upon review of Wound Savers of California contract, 2a. includes that All Wound Specialist is a duly licensed Nurse practitioner and is authorized to perform.... Contractor visit reports include name only for visiting staff, no credentials to verify.”
-
Criminal background checks (42 CFR 418.114(d)(1))
“Upon personnel record review, 3 of 13 (Personnel #11, 12, 13) did not have evidence the hospice obtained a criminal background check on all contracted individuals who have direct patient care and access to patient records. Personnel #11,12,13: There was no criminal background check from contractor available to surveyor by end of survey.”
-
Multiple locations (42 CFR 418.116(a))
“Upon observation, there was no evidence the organizational chart matches the hospice’s information submitted to CMS and/or State licensing agencies for ownership and management personnel. DPCS has hire date of 12/19/24. No evidence of update to CDPH was available to surveyor at time of survey.”
All 3 inspections in the last three years
| Date | Visit | What the record says |
|---|---|---|
| Nov 3, 2025 | Follow-up inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care | 3 deficiencies cited |
| Sep 17, 2025 | Follow-up inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care | 13 deficiencies cited |
| Aug 7, 2025 | Reaccreditation inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care | 15 deficiencies cited |
Is it certified?
- Medicare-certified hospice since Aug 30, 2022.
- CMS doesn’t list its type of ownership.
- Cited at 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. in the last three years: it didn’t meet a whole condition of Medicare’s rules.
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.
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): 15.3 nurse care minutes per routine home care day, 28.4% of skilled nursing minutes at weekends and a visit near death for 89.5% of patients who died.
- Where its patients were cared for (Jan 1, 2024 to Dec 31, 2024): 49% at home, 51% in assisted living.
CMS, Hospice Provider Data. Released Aug 26, 2026. Updated quarterly.
| Measure | This provider |
|---|---|
| Nurse care minutes per routine home care day | 15.3 min |
| Skilled nursing minutes at weekends | 28.4% |
| Visits near death | 89.5% of patients who died |
Who owns it?
- 7 owners or officers are people: Melik Gozalian (owns 5% or more directly, 100%); Melik Gozalian (corporate officer, 100%); Melik Gozalian (corporate director, 100%); Maribel Pagkalinawan (managing employee (on the payroll), 100%); Maribel Pagkalinawan (runs it (operational or managerial control), 100%); Eufrocino Martinez (managing employee (under contract)); Ariel Andrino (managing employee (on the payroll)).
- No private-equity firm among the owners CMS lists.
- No real-estate investment trust among the owners CMS lists.
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: 10 of 10 (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024).
- 77.78% of patients were assessed on all seven of CMS’s measures at the start of care (Oct 1, 2024 to Sep 30, 2025).
CMS, CAHPS Hospice Survey and Hospice Provider Data. Released Aug 26, 2026. Updated quarterly.
| Measure | Rating |
|---|---|
| Family caregiver survey ratingCMS star rating from its survey of patients’ family caregivers, 1 to 5 | Not 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 threshold | 10 of 10 |
How does it compare nearby?
- Of the 159 hospices CMS’s data show serving patients in ZIP code 91040, where this hospice’s office is, the middle number of deficiencies cited in the last three years was 4; this one had 31.
CMS, Hospice ZIP Data. Released Aug 26, 2026. Updated quarterly.
CMS, QCOR hospice inspection reports. Released Oct 23, 2026. Updated quarterly.
| Place | Deficiencies, 3 years |
|---|---|
| Acute Hospice Care, Inc. | 23 |
| Integral Hospice, Inc. | 5 |
| Alleviate Hospice, Inc. | 18 |
| Gao Hospice Care, Inc. | 0 |
| California Hospice Care Center | 3 |
| Alesya Hospice, Inc. | Not given |
| Flintridge Hospice Care, Inc. | Not given |
| My Comfort Care Hospice, Inc. | 2 |
| Grace Palliative & Hospice Care This hospice | 31 |
| Vermel Hospice, Inc. | 5 |
| Providence at Home With Compassus Hospice Care La County | 5 |
| Kaiser Foundation Hospital Valley Continuing Care | 10 |
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
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Hospice General Information (yc9t-dgbk).
Released Aug 26, 2026 and checked Oct 27, 2026. Updated quarterly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Hospice Provider Data (252m-zfp9).
Released Aug 26, 2026 and checked Oct 27, 2026. Updated quarterly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, CAHPS Hospice Survey (gxki-hrr8).
Released Aug 26, 2026 and checked Oct 27, 2026. Updated quarterly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, QCOR hospice inspection reports (Hospice Survey Reports - Oct 2021 through Sep 2026.xlsx).
Released Oct 23, 2026 and checked Oct 27, 2026. Updated quarterly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Hospice All Owners (e983965e-1603-4cb8-82b5-c40090e380d1).
Released Sep 29, 2026 and checked Oct 27, 2026. Updated quarterly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Hospice Enrollments (25704213-e833-4b8b-9dbc-58dd17149209).
Released Sep 29, 2026 and checked Oct 27, 2026. Updated quarterly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Hospice ZIP Data (95rg-2usp).
Released Aug 26, 2026 and checked Oct 27, 2026. Updated quarterly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
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.
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.