Hearth Record

Eos Hospice & Palliative Care Inc.

A hospice in Covina, California 91723

646 South Barranca Ave, Covina, California 91723. (909) 766-8281.

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 27 deficiencies in 2 months of the last 36. Last cited Aug 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?

27 deficiencies cited in the last three years

The middle of the 70 hospices serving ZIP code 91723 had 7.5.

The last inspection on record was on Aug 7, 2025: an initial 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

27 deficiencies in 2 months of the last 36. Last cited Aug 2025. Most serious: Condition-level. The last 3 years, to Oct 27, 2026.

27 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.

Aug 7, 2025: initial inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care6 deficiencies
  • Notice of rights and responsibilities (42 CFR 418.52(a)(1))

    “Upon observation and home visits, 2 of 3 (Patient #1, 3) there was no evidence that during the initial assessment visit in advance of furnishing care, the hospice provided the patient and/or family with verbal (meaning spoken) and written notice of the Patient’s Rights and Responsibilities in a language and manner that the patient understands. Patient visits #1 and #3: The patients and patient caregivers speak a primary language of Chinese. Patient rights and Responsibilities were not provided in a manner that the patient and caregiver understands.”

    Rule L0502. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 145 words

    “Upon patient record review, 10 of 14 (Patients #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) did not have evidence in the patient record that a review was completed of all prescription and non-prescription medications, including herbal remedies that could affect drug therapy. This review includes, but is not limited to: • Effectiveness of drug therapy • Drug side effects • Actual or potential drug interactions • Duplicate drug therapy • Drug therapy currently associated with laboratory monitoring Patient #1-10: There was no evidence in the record of an ongoing process to monitor effectiveness of drug therapy, drug side effects, actual or potential drug interactions, duplicate therapy and or drug therapy currently associated with laboratory monitoring when there are medication changes. The place for documentation of this in the EMR was in the IDG meetings and was left blank on every IDG meeting.”

    Rule L0530. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 464 words

    “Upon patient record review, 10 of 14 (Patients #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) did not have evidence in the patient record that 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 #1,3,5,9: The patient has a nebulizer and suction machine with no interventions for nebulizer or suction machine on the plan of care. The patient has a comfort kit for use for symptom issues. There was no evidence of interventions or goals related to the comfort kit in the plan of care. Patient #2,7: The patient has a nebulizer and suction machine with no interventions for nebulizer or suction machine on the plan of care. The patient is taking Eliquis, there are no interventions or goals for use of anticoagulants and bleeding in the plan of care. The patient has a comfort kit for symptom issues. There was no evidence of interventions or goals related to the comfort kit in the plan of care. Patient #4: The patient has a nebulizer and suction machine with no evidence of interventions for nebulizer or suction machine on the plan of care. The patient is taking aspirin daily. There is no evidence of interventions or goals for use of anti coagulants and bleeding in the plan of care. The patient had been prescribed a comfort kit for symptom issues. There was no evidence of interventions or goals related to the comfort kit in the plan of care. Patient #6: The patient had substance abuse concerns, history of emotional illness, strained family relationships and was assessed as moderate psychosocial distress. There is no evidence of interventions or goals for these items in the POC. The patient has a nebulizer and suction machine with no interventions for nebulizer or suction machine on the plan of care. The patient had a comfort kit for symptom issues. There was no evidence of interventions or goals related to the comfort kit in the plan of care. Patient #8: The patient had a comfort kit for symptom issues. There was no evidence of interventions or goals related to the comfort kit in the plan of care. Patient #10: The patient has a nebulizer and suction machine with no interventions for nebulizer or suction machine on the plan of care. The patient is a full code with no evidence of interventions or goals for advanced directives or code status in the plan of care. The patient had a comfort kit for symptom issues with no evidence of interventions or goals”

    Rule L0545. Standard-level.

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

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 14 (Patient #2) 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 #2: The patient was admitted with a mechanical soft diet. There was an order written on 04/03/25 to change diet, adding honey thickened liquids. There is no evidence that the POC was updated to reflect diet change.”

    Rule L0553. Standard-level.

  • Discharge or transfer of care (42 CFR 418.104(e)(3))

    “Upon patient record review, 6 of 14 (Patients #5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) did not have evidence that the discharge summary includes all required information. Patients # 5-10: Although all patients had a discharge summary that included the summary of patient stay, there is no evidence that it included the patient’s current POC, the latest physician orders, or a medication profile.”

    Rule L0684. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 130 words

    “Upon patient record review, 2 of 14 (Patient #1,8) 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: The wound order for a coccyx wound does not state when hospice RN will perform dressing change versus the facility staff. It does not state a reason for prn dressing changes such as for soilage. Patient #8: The wound order for a coccyx wound does not state when hospice RN will perform dressing change versus the facility staff. It does not state a reason for prn dressing changes such as for soilage.”

    Rule L0774. Standard-level.

Apr 17, 2025: reaccreditation inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care21 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.

  • Hospice aide and homemaker services (42 CFR 418.76)

    “Condition of Participation: Hospice Aide and Homemaker Services. L607”

    Rule L0607. Condition-level.

  • Rights of the patient (42 CFR 418.52(c)(4))

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 14 (Patient #5) did not have evidence that the patient chooses a health care provider, including an attending physician. Patient 5: The patient record did not have evidence that the patient chose a health care provider on the EOB.”

    Rule L0515. Standard-level.

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

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 14 (Patient #5) did not have evidence of the appropriate documentation for release of confidential information. Patient 5: On the SOC date 5/17/23 the hospice consent did not have information for what information/ HPI can be released. The check boxes for the information that can be released were left blank.”

    Rule L0516. Standard-level.

  • Content of comprehensive assessment (42 CFR 418.54(c)(4))

    “Upon patient record review, 10 of 14 (Patient 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) did not have evidence in the patient record that the comprehensive assessment takes into consideration the imminence of death. Patient:1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10: There is no evidence in the comprehensive nursing assessment that nurse assessed the patient for imminence of death.”

    Rule L0528. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 306 words

    “Upon patient record review, 3 of 14 (Patient #1,2,3) 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: Patient 1: There is a medication order on the POC for “Diclofenac Sodium Arthritis Pain Reliever 1% topical Gel 2grams topical twice daily ordered on 2/14/25”. This order is not included on the SNF medication profile, corrected on site. The POC 4/15/25 includes an order for “Tylenol 650mg every 4 hours as needed on 10/28/24”. This order is not included on the SNF medication profile, corrected on site. The hospice POC contains a medication order ,”Ativan 2mg/ml 0.5-1mg, 0.25-0.5ml sublingual every 2 hours prn on 9/23/24”,corrected on site. Patient 2: The HSP medication profile contains Calmoseptine 1 application topically BID and prn without a frequency for the PRN or site to apply. Corrected on site. The HSP POC 4/15/25 “Ativan 2mg/ml 0.5-1mg 0.25-0.5ml sublingual every 2 hours as needed for anxiety” This medication order is not included on the SNF medication profile, corrected on site. The HSP POC 4/15/25 contains an order for “oxygen 2L/min via NC for shortness of breath/wheezing PRN” This medication order is not included on the SNF medication profile, corrected on site. Patient 3: On the SNF MAR contains orders for the following meds that were not included on the HSP medication profile: Acetaminophen Oral Tablet 325mg give 2 tablets via G-tube every 8 hours as needed ordered 2/21/25, Aspirin Oral Tablet Chewable 81mg ordered 2/21/25 ordered, Atorvastatin Calcium Oral Tablet 20mg ordered 3/15/25, Calcium Carbonate Oral Tablet ordered 2/21/25, Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen oral Tablet 5-325 on 2/21/25, Melatonin Oral Tablet 3mg ordered on 2/21/25, Multivitamin-Minerals Oral Tablet ordered on 2/21/25, Psyllium Oral Capsule ordered on 2/21/25. Corrected on site.”

    Rule L0530. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 345 words

    “Upon patient record review, 4 of 14 (Patient #3,6,10,12) 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 3: The POC 4/16/25 contains an order for wound care being completed by facility nursing 3 times per week and to collaborate with hospice. There is no evidence the SN from hospice assessed and collaborated with the facility nurse performing the wound care or assessed the wound since 4/1/25. The patient has a G tube per Comprehensive assessment 3/15/25 there is no evidence the SN assessed the site for signs and symptoms of infection at any of the visits performed since admission. Patient 6: The SN documented in the comprehensive assessment 3/18/25, the patient is on peritoneal dialysis 3 times per week and family assists patient with this. The SN did not document any assessment of the peritoneal dialysis port or assess for signs and symptoms of infection on the following visits: 3/21/25,3/25/25,4/1/25. Patient 10: The SN documented in the comprehensive assessment on 1/16/25 that the patient had a colostomy, there was no assessment of the colostomy in any of the the SN assessments. Patient 12: Pt in SNF and on routine level of care. On 2/16/25 the FSN documented at 23:19 “Resident was noted O2 sat 85% immediately notified hospice nurse, recommended breathing treatment and Ativan”. Hospice SN documented speaking with SNF “condition improved with Duoneb and Ativan and O2 sat up to 94% and breathing is less labored”. There was no visit made by hospice nurse, the next hospice nurse visit was 2/18/25. The FSN documented on 2/18/25 “Called hospice at 10am to report change in condition temp 101.1, HR 115, resp 24, 95% 3 liters, bp 125/69 patient not eating and has labored breathing, gave Duoneb and Ativan for tachypnea. The hospice nurse made a visit at 18:31 that evening.”

    Rule L0540. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 108 words

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 14 (Patient #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 6: On the nursing comprehensive assessment the SN documented a risk of aspiration. There is no evidence that a risk of aspiration care plan exists with goals and interventions. Corrected on site.”

    Rule L0545. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 228 words

    “Upon patient record review, 3 of 14 (Patient #7,#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: Patient 7: The POC 3/13/24 Change patient to routine level of care, SN frequency 2 times per week and 5x weekly prn for change in condition. This would allow the patient to be seen daily with no order frequency change. Patient 8: The POC 9/17/24 contains an order for SN twice a week with 5 PRN weekly for change in condition. This would allow for the SN to see the patient 7 days a week, if patient needs visits 7 days per week, the SN frequency would need to be increased with an order. Patient 9: The POC 7/29/24 contains an order to place patient back on routine level of care and for SN 2 times per week and 5 prn for change in condition. This would allow the patient to be seed daily with no order frequency change. The POC 7/31/24 contains an order for SN twice a week with 5 PRN weekly for change in condition. This would allow for the SN to see the patient 7 days a week, if patient needs visits 7 days per week, the SN frequency would need to be increased with an order.”

    Rule L0547. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 500 words

    “Upon patient record review, 4 of 14 (Patient #1,2,3,6) 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: On 9/23/24 the POC states “wound care per facility protocol, wound care to be performed by nursing staff at facility, to coordinate treatment with hospice”, there is no specific orders for wound care or assessment needs found on the POC. On the SNF medication profile “Ensure one can daily ordered, as tolerated on 9/24/24”, this order is not on the hospice POC, corrected on site. Patient 2: On the current POC there is an order for “Calmoseptine cream one application” There are no directions for application, dose or where to apply. Corrected on site. Patient 3: The SN documented on the comprehensive assessment patient has new G tube. There are no orders on the POC for G tube site care or flushing. Corrected on site. On the SNF POC there is an order for “Acetaminophen Oral Tablet 325mg give 2 tablets via G-tube every 8 hours as needed 2/21/25” There is no order on the hospice POC, corrected on site. On the SNF POC there is an order for “Aspirin Oral Tablet Chewable 81mg ordered 2/21/25” There is no order on the hospice POC, corrected on site. On the SNF POC there is an order for Atorvastatin Calcium Oral Tablet 20mg ordered 3/15/25” There is no order on the hospice POC, corrected on site. The SNF POC contains an order for “Calcium Carbonate Oral Tablet ordered 2/21/25” There is no order on the hospice POC, corrected on site. On the SNF POC there is an order for “Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen oral Tablet 5-325 on 2/21/25” There is no order on the hospice POC, corrected on site. On the SNF POC there is an order for “Melatonin Oral Tablet 3mg ordered on 2/21/25” There is no order on the hospice POC, corrected on site. The SNF POC contains an order for Multivitamin-Minerals Oral Tablet ordered on 2/21/25” There is no order on the hospice POC, corrected on site. The SNF POC contains an order for “Psyllium Oral Capsule ordered on 2/21/25” There is no order on the hospice POC, corrected on site. Patient 6: On the POC 3/27/25 there is an order for “stool for C-diff” there is no frequency or who is to complete this order. On POC 3/18/25 there is an order for “Gentamicin 0.1% topical ointment to prevent infection”, there is no dose or route for this medication listed on the POC. On POC 3/18/25 there is an order for Vancomycin Hydrochloride 280mg/5ml powder for solution, there is no diluent listed for this order. The SN documented in the comprehensive assessment 3/18/25 “pt is on peritoneal dialysis 3 days per week for comfort it is not related to the hospice diagnosis”. There were no orders on the POC for assessment or care of the peritoneal dialysis port. Corrected on site.”

    Rule L0549. Standard-level.

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

    “Upon client record review, 1 of 14 (Patient #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 2: The plan of care 3/28/25 has an order for spiritual care and social work one time monthly, there is no evidence that spiritual care or social work attended IDG or updated the plan of care.”

    Rule L0552. Standard-level.

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

    “Upon client record review 1 of 14 (Patient #9) did not have evidence that the IDG ensures that the care and services are provided in accordance with the plan of care. Patient 9: The POC 7/29/24 contains an order for SN 2 times per week and 5 prn for change in condition. The week of 7/28/24-8/3/24 the SN saw the patient on 7/30/24,7/31/24 and 8/2/24. The third visit was not PRN and there was no order for an additional visit.”

    Rule L0555. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 229 words

    “Upon patient record review 1 of 14 (Patient #12) 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 12: The medical record contains a POLST with comfort care and full code for respiratory and cardiac arrest. Upon admission, the MSW did their comprehensive assessment and documented “explained the differences with DNR and full code with family”. There was no further documentation on DNR vs full code. Pt was in GIP level of care for respiratory distress from 2/12/25-2/15/25 there was no evidence of discussion to change patient to DNR or how to care for a patient in GIP level of care for respiratory distress that is a full code. The MSW did not make visits to assist with this care need. MSW was ordered for 1 initial comprehensive assessment and 2 monthly prn for psychosocial needs. Pt back on routine level of care 2/16/25. On 2/18/25 began to again have respiratory distress the SN visited “due to respiratory distress and possible aspiration offered to transfer patient to hospital but family declined”. There was again no discussion about the full code status. The MSW was not called in to assess the situation and assist with the full code status. The patient did revoke that night and went to the hospital and passed away.”

    Rule L0556. Standard-level.

  • Competency evaluation (42 CFR 418.76(c))

    “Upon personnel record review, 1 of 14 (Personnel #4) 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.) Personnel 4: The aide competency did not contain evidence of the aide performing a sponge bath or shampooing in sink and bed”

    Rule L0615. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 259 words

    “Upon patient record review, 9 of 14 (Patient 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10) did not have evidence in the patient record that hospice aide assignments and duties are: Patient 1:The Aide plan of care 9/23/24 includes orders for the following: turn and reposition the patient, change linens, but does not include a frequency. Corrected on site. Patient 2: The Aide POC 5/3/24 includes orders to turn and reposition the patient, but does not include a frequency. Corrected on site. Patient 3: The Aide POC 3/15/25 includes orders to turn and reposition patient, empty collection bag and record bowel movements but does not contain a frequency. Corrected on site. Patient 5: The Aide POC 11/5/24 includes orders to turn and reposition patient and record bowel movements but does not contain a frequency. Corrected on site. Patient 6: The Aide POC 3/18/25 includes orders to turn and reposition patient and record bowel movements but does not contain a frequency. Corrected on site. Patient 7: The Aide POC 3/11/25 includes orders to record bowel movements and change linens but does not contain a frequency. Patient 8: The Aide POC on 9/17/25 includes orders for the following: turn and reposition patient, empty colostomy bag, change patient linens but does not contain a frequency. Patient 9: The Aide POC 7/29/25 includes orders for the following: turn and reposition, record bowel movements but does not contain a frequency. Patient 10: The Aide POC 1/16/25 includes orders for the following: turn and reposition, empty colostomy bag, record bowel movement, mechanical lift, change linens, these orders do not contain a frequency.”

    Rule L0625. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 211 words

    “Upon patient record review 5 of 14 (Patient# 2,3,7,9,12) did not have evidence documentation in the patient record that a hospice aide provides services that are: Patient 2: The POC 4/15/25 contains an order for aide visits three times weekly. There was one aide visits made the week on 4/10/25 during the week of 4/6/25 - 4/12/25 and there was no missed visit documentation, no evidence of refusal. Patient 3: The POC 4/16/25 contains an order for aide visits two times weekly. There was one aide visits made on 4/10/25 during the week of 4/4/25 - 4/10/25, there was no missed visit documentation, no evidence of refusal . Patient 7: The POC 4/16/25 contains an order for aide visits two times weekly. There was one visit made during the week of 3/9/25 - 3/15/25 and no missed visit documentation, no evidence of refusal. Patient 9: The Aide was ordered on 7/29/24 POC for 3 times a week the aide saw 8/1/24 and 8/3/24 the week of 7/28/24-8/3/24., there was no missed visit documentation or evidence of refusal. Patient 12: The Aide was ordered on 2/12/25 for 3 times a week the aide saw 2/13/25 and 2/18/245 there was no 3rd visit made and no missed visit documented or evidence of refusal.”

    Rule L0626. Standard-level.

  • Content (42 CFR 418.104(a)(2))

    “Upon patient client record review, 1 of 14 (Patient #5) did not have evidence that each patient record contains: Patient 5: The EOB upon admission did not contain evidence that patient was given the right to choose an attending physician.”

    Rule L0673. Standard-level.

  • Content (42 CFR 418.104(a)(3))

    “Upon patient client record review, 1 of 14 (Patient #3) did not have evidence that each patient record contains responses to medications, symptom management, treatments, and services. Patient 3: The SN flushed the G tube and checked for patency on 3/29/25, 4/4/25,4/8/25,4/11/25 and did not document how the patient tolerated the procedures.”

    Rule L0674. Standard-level.

  • Authentication (42 CFR 418.104(b))

    The inspectors’ words, 225 words

    “Upon patient client record review 2 of 14 (Patient #3,6) 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: On the comprehensive nursing assessment there was documentation “dysphagia with new GT” GT is not an approved abbreviations in the hospice policy for approved abbreviations. Patient 6: On the comprehensive nursing assessment there was the following documentation: “PD and MASD” on 3/18/25 by the RN. On SN visit 4/10/25 the SN documented “ the pt is AAOx2” These are not approved abbreviations in the hospice policy for approved abbreviations. On 3/27/25 POC there is a medication “Regan 5mg 1 tab 3xs daily”, upon clarification with RN, the medication was misspelled should have been Reglan. Corrected on site. The SN documented on 4/3/25, 4/8/25, 3/27/25 performing wound care by restating the MD order and it was not in past tense to indicate the wound care was completed. The skilled nurse documented on 3/27/25, 4/3/25, 4/8/25, 4/10/25, “wound care is done by hospice RN” the wound care is documented by restating the order not in past tense to indicate that the wound care was completed.”

    Rule L0679. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 162 words

    “Upon client record review, 3 of 14 (Patient #1,2,3) did not have evidence that a written hospice plan of care is established and maintained in consultation with SNF/NF or ICF/IID representatives. All hospice care provided is in accordance with this hospice plan of care. Patient 1: The POC contains an order for the SN to visit two times weekly, on the week of 3/30/25 - 4/5 there was one visit made. There was no missed visit documentation. The POC 9/23/24 states “wound care per facility protocol, wound care to be performed by nursing staff at facility, to coordinate treatment with hospice”, there is no specific orders for wound care or assessment of wound found on the POC, corrected on site. Patient 3: The SN documented on 3/29/25, 4/4/25,4/8/25,4/11/25 “Patient gastrostomy tube placement checked, feeding is tolerated, no residual noted, flushed with 50ml of water”. There is no order on the POC for checking placement or flushing of the G tube, corrected onsite.”

    Rule L0773. Standard-level.

  • Coordination of services (42 CFR 418.112(e)(2))

    The inspectors’ words, 125 words

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 14 (Patient #12), there was no evidence there is a designated member of the IDG responsible for any patient who is a resident of the SNF/NF or ICF/IID. The designated IDG member is responsible for communicating with the a SNF/NF or ICF/IID facility’s medical director, the patient’s attending physician, and other physicians participating in the provision of care as needed to coordinate the hospice care of the patient with the medical care provided by other physicians. Patient 12: Pt under routine LOC 2/16/25-2/18/25. Pt having respiratory distress documented by FSN 2/16/25 and HSP nurse on 2/18/25. There was no evidence of any communication done with the hospice medical director other than an order to increase oxygen on the POC.”

    Rule L0780. Standard-level.

All 2 inspections in the last three years
Inspections on record
DateVisitWhat the record says
Aug 7, 2025Initial inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care6 deficiencies cited
Apr 17, 2025Reaccreditation inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care21 deficiencies cited

Is it certified?

  • Medicare-certified hospice since May 9, 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?

  • 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): 20% at home, 43% in assisted living, 37% in a skilled nursing facility.
Source:

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

Who owns it?

  • 9 owners or officers are people: Zhijun Mo (owns 5% or more directly, 100%); Zhijun Mo (corporate officer, 100%); Zhijun Mo (corporate director, 100%); Zhijun Mo (managing employee (on the payroll), 100%); Zhijun Mo (runs it (operational or managerial control), 100%); Mewei Lai (corporate officer, 100%); Mewei Lai (corporate director, 100%); Mewei Lai (managing employee (on the payroll), 100%); Mewei Lai (runs it (operational or managerial control), 100%).
  • 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 70 hospices CMS’s data show serving patients in ZIP code 91723, where this hospice’s office is, the middle number of deficiencies cited in the last three years was 7.5; this one had 27.
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.