Hearth Record

7 Star Hospice Care Inc.

A hospice in San Bernardino, California 92408

1264 S Waterman Ave, Suite 47, San Bernardino, California 92408. (909) 500-9740.

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 10 deficiencies in 1 month of the last 36. Last cited Oct 2025. Most serious: Standard-level. Every month

Each figure’s source sits beside it, in its section below.

What these words mean2
Inspection (survey)
A visit by state inspectors, often unannounced, who check a place against the rules it must meet. For nursing homes and other places Medicare pays, CMS calls these visits surveys: a standard survey of a nursing home comes at least every 15 months, and a complaint survey whenever a complaint calls for one. Source: CMS; 42 CFR 488.308.
Deficiency, citation, violation
What inspectors write up when a place didn’t meet a rule: the rule, what they saw, and when. CMS calls it a deficiency; states may say citation or violation. It is the inspectors’ finding, not a court’s, and the place is usually asked for a plan to correct it. Source: CMS, statement of deficiencies (Form CMS-2567); each state’s licensing agency.

What did inspectors find?

10 deficiencies cited in the last three years

The middle of the 64 hospices serving ZIP code 92408 had 6.5.

The last inspection on record was on Oct 30, 2025: a reaccreditation inspection by The Joint Commission.

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

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

10 deficiencies by month over the last 3 years. Each cell is one month.
JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
2023 NovDec
2024 JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
2025 JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
2026 JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOct

Hover or focus a month to read it.

No visit on record Visited, nothing cited A stronger orange is more serious, on its source’s own levels, read onto four bands: from the least serious it publishes to the most
Source:

Hearth Record drew this from the dates and levels in the source’s own records.

Each deficiency, as cited

Rule titles as CMS’s inspectors cite them, set in sentence case.

Source:

CMS, QCOR hospice inspection reports. Released Oct 23, 2026. Updated quarterly.

Oct 30, 2025: reaccreditation inspection by The Joint Commission10 deficiencies
  • Plan Based on All Hazards Risk Assessment (42 CFR 418.113(a)(1))

    “Observed in Emergency Management Session. Hospice HVA risk assessment did not include technological hazards. Example HVA assessment did not include technological Hazards. This was confirmed by the DPCS.”

    Rule E0006. Standard-level.

  • Content of comprehensive assessment (42 CFR 418.54(c)(5))

    “Observed in Record Review. In 1 out of 1 wound records, the organization did not reassesses the wound per policy. Example: In RRNHV#3, Stage 2 wound reassessments were not completed weeks 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9,10, and 11 of benefit period #2. This was confirmed with the DPCS.”

    Rule L0529. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 270 words

    “Observed in Record Review. In 8 out of 8 records, hospice did not develop an individualized plan of care for each patient related to Spiritual and Psychosocial needs. Examples: In RRNHV#1, RRNHV#2, RRNHV#3, RRNHV#4, RRNHV#5, RRHV#1, RRHV#2, and RRNHV#3, the Chaplain and MSW each had a planned frequency of Initial evaluation within 5 days and once every recert. This was confirmed by the DPCS. Observed in Record Review. In 7 out of 7 records, the hospice did not develop an individualized plan of care with measurable goals. Examples: In RRNHV#1, the following goals were not measurable: Provide timely, effective pain relief to maintain comfort; For patient/family/PC to remain satisfied with living arrangement it is essential to link patient/family caregiver to have all available resources; Improve sleep quality and promote restful nighttime sleep; In RRNHV#1 there were no individualized goals related to GERD and Hypertension. In RRNHV#2, the following goals were not measurable: Patient will achieve restful sleep and remain comfortable overnight;; Patient/family/PCG to remain satisfied with living arrangement; Maintain patient comfort. In RRHNV#3, patient had a foley catheter but no GU goals. In RRNHV#4, RRNHV#5, and RRNHV#7, patients have medication orders to manage pain but did not have any identified pain goals. In RRNHV#6, patient did not have a skin/integumentary goal and patient had a wound. Patient also had a foley and not have a GU goal. Spiritual goals in RRNHV#1, RRNHV#2, RRNHV#3, RRNHV#4, RRNHV#5, and RRNHV#6 were interventions and not measurable. Examples of the Spiritual goals included: Provide prayer, meditation, scripture reading; Assess spiritual needs and preferences; and Facilitate articulations of spiritual concerns. This was confirmed with the DPCS.”

    Rule L0545. Standard-level.

  • Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(1))

    The inspectors’ words, 102 words

    “Observed in Record Review. In 2 out 10 charts, the plan of care did not include interventions to manage symptoms and care. Example: In RRNHV#3, the plan of care did not include orders related to the 16F foley catheter identified on admission. The plan of care also did not include wound care orders for the patient’s stage 2 wound identified on admission. In RRNHV#6, there were no wound care orders on the initial plan of care for a stage 4 wound identified on admission. There were also no Foley Catheter orders on the plan of care. This was confirmed with the DPCS.”

    Rule L0546. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 171 words

    “Observed in Record Review. In 4 out of 7 records, multiple PRN medications were ordered to address the same symptom but the orders did not clarify when each medication was to be administered. Examples: In RRHV#1, Acetaminophen and morphine sulfate were ordered to address pain prn but did not state when each was to be given. Lorazepam tablets and Lorazepam concentrate solution were ordered prn for agitation but did not state when each was to be given. In RRNHV#3, Acetaminophen suppositories, Norco, and Diclofenac Sodium gel were ordered prn for pain but did not state when each was to be used. In RRNHV#4, Acetaminophen suppositories and morphine sulfate were ordered prn for pain but did not state when each should be given. . In RRNHV#6, Norco, Acetaminophen suppositories, and Morphine Sulphate was ordered prn for pain but did not state when each should be given. Bisacodyl suppository and Docusate Sodium capsules were ordered prn for constipation but did not state when each should be given. This was confirmed by the DPCS.”

    Rule L0549. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 116 words

    “Observed in Record Review. In 4 out of 10 records, the organization did not provide services in accordance with the plan of care. Examples: In RRHV#1, there was a missed SN visit in weeks 2, 4, 5, and 6 of benefit period #1. In RRNHV#1, an extra nursing visit was made during weeks 2, 4, 5, and 6 of benefit period 8. In RRNHV#2, an extra nursing visit was made during weeks 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 of benefit period 17. In RRNHV#5, an extra nursing visit was made during weeks 2 and 3 of admission. In RRBR#2, Bereavement mailings were not sent out per the stated Bereavement POC. This was confirmed with the DPCS.”

    Rule L0555. Standard-level.

  • Program scope (42 CFR 418.58(a)(1))

    “Observed in Leadership Session. The quality assessment and performance improvement program did not demonstrate improvement in indicators related to improved palliative outcomes and hospice services. As the organization had not identified any performance improvement projects, they were not able to demonstrate improvement. This was discussed with the DPCS.”

    Rule L0561. Standard-level.

  • Program data (42 CFR 418.58(b)(2)(ii))

    “Observed in Leadership Session. The organization did not analyze and compare internal QAPI data over time to identify levels of performance, patterns, trends, and variations. This was confirmed by the DPCS.”

    Rule L0564. Standard-level.

  • Discharge or transfer of care (42 CFR 418.104(e)(1)(i))

    “Observed in Record Review. In 1 out of 1 applicable transfer records, the hospice did not provide the receiving facility with a copy of the hospice discharge summary and if requested a copy of the patient’s clinical record. This was confirmed by the DPCS.”

    Rule L0682. Standard-level.

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

    “Observed in Record Review. In 2 out of 2 live discharge records, the hospice did not provide the patient’s attending physician with a copy of the hospice discharge summary and, if requested, a copy of the patient’s clinical records after discharge or transfer. Examples: In RRDC#1, a discharge summary was not sent to the Attending after revocation. In RRDC#2, a discharge summary was not sent to the Attending after a transfer to another agency. This was confirmed with the DPCS.”

    Rule L0683. Standard-level.

The one inspection in the last three years
Inspections on record
DateVisitWhat the record says
Oct 30, 2025Reaccreditation inspection by The Joint Commission10 deficiencies cited

Is it certified?

  • Medicare-certified hospice since Jul 31, 2023.
  • CMS doesn’t list its type of ownership.
  • No deficiency or on record in the last three years.
Source:

CMS, Hospice General Information. Released Aug 26, 2026. Updated quarterly.

CMS, QCOR hospice inspection reports. Released Oct 23, 2026. Updated quarterly.

Has anything been proven against it?

  • CMS doesn’t publish fines or other penalties for hospices, so none are shown.
  • 0 deficiencies cited in the last three years came from inspections that included a complaint investigation.
Source:

CMS, QCOR hospice inspection reports. Released Oct 23, 2026. Updated quarterly.

Who does the caring?

  • CMS hasn’t published nursing time from Medicare claims for this hospice.
  • Where its patients were cared for (Jan 1, 2024 to Dec 31, 2024): 100% at home.
Source:

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

Who owns it?

  • CMS’s ownership file has no owners listed for this hospice.
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.
  • 95.45% 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.

How does it compare nearby?

  • Of the 64 hospices CMS’s data show serving patients in ZIP code 92408, where this hospice’s office is, the middle number of deficiencies cited in the last three years was 6.5; this one had 10.
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.