ENCINO HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER D/P SNF
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Encino Hospital Medical Center D/P SNF has a Trust Grade of D, indicating below-average performance with some concerning issues. They rank #575 out of 1,155 facilities in California, placing them in the top half, and #104 out of 369 in Los Angeles County, meaning there are only a few local options that are better. Unfortunately, the facility's trend is worsening, with the number of issues increasing from 12 in 2023 to 19 in 2024. Staffing is a relative strength, with a turnover rate of 26%, which is better than the state average, and they have more RN coverage than 95% of California facilities, ensuring better oversight of resident care. However, the facility has accumulated $24,030 in fines, which is concerning as it is higher than 89% of other facilities in California, suggesting repeated compliance issues. Specific incidents include inadequate temperature control affecting resident comfort and concerns regarding the care plans for residents with serious conditions, highlighting both strengths in staffing and significant weaknesses in overall care quality.
- Trust Score
- D
- In California
- #575/1155
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ✓ Good
- 26% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 22 points below California's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- Penalties ○ Average
- $24,030 in fines. Higher than 73% of California facilities. Some compliance issues.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 130 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of California nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 31 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Low Staff Turnover (26%) · Staff stability means consistent care
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover is low (26%)
22 points below California average of 48%
Facility shows strength in quality measures, staff retention, fire safety.
The Bad
Near California average (3.1)
Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
Part of a multi-facility chain
Ask about local staffing decisions and management
The Ugly 31 deficiencies on record
Dec 2024
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to report an alleged incident of physical abuse involving one of one s...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Investigate Abuse
(Tag F0610)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to conduct a timely and thorough investigation for one of one sampled ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Dec 2024
5 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to:
1. Ensure Certified Nursing Assistant 2 (CNA 2) was not standing over a resident while feeding the resident for one (Residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Report Alleged Abuse
(Tag F0609)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement its abuse prohibition policy by failing to report immediately, but no later than two hours after the allegation was made, an alle...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Accident Prevention
(Tag F0689)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Certified Nursing Assistant 1 (CNA 1) did not transfer a resident from the wheelchair to the bed using a mechanical lif...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow safe food handling practices by failing to ens...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure Certified Nursing Assistant 1 (CNA 1) performed hand hygiene (the practice of cleaning your hands to prevent the sprea...
Read full inspector narrative →
Oct 2024
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0583
(Tag F0583)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff protect and maintain residents privacy and confidentia...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2024
2 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0573
(Tag F0573)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to support one resident's (Resident 1) right to access personal and me...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Grievances
(Tag F0585)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to make information available on how to file a grievance...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2024
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0551
(Tag F0551)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents' rights were honored when the facility limited Resident 1's legal representative's visitation to one hour a day.
This fai...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2024
8 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents' right to a dignified existence by fa...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0552
(Tag F0552)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to promote the resident's right to be informed of and participate in their treatment for one of two sampled residents (Resident 5) by failing ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide professional standards of care to residents receiving care for deep vein thrombosis (DVT, a blood clot [gel-like clump...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure licensed nursing staff completed documentation indicating reconciliation (a system of recordkeeping that ensures an accurate invento...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow proper food handling practices by failing to ensure frozen poultry was dated while thawing in the refrigerator.
This d...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0883
(Tag F0883)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure there was documented evidence that the pneumococcal vaccines...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
3. A review of Resident 1's Admission/Registration Record, dated 1/1/2024, indicated the facility admitted the resident with a diagnosis of respiratory failure (a serious condition that occurs when th...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Infection Control
(Tag F0880)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. A review of Resident 18's Admission/Registration form, dated 1/1/2024, indicated the facility admitted the resident with a di...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2023
1 deficiency
CONCERN
(D)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0551
(Tag F0551)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to protect and promote the interest and safety for one of one sampled ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jul 2023
1 deficiency
1 IJ (1 facility-wide)
CRITICAL
(L)
📢 Someone Reported This
A family member, employee, or ombudsman was alarmed enough to file a formal complaint
Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation
Safe Environment
(Tag F0584)
Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents
⚠️ Facility-wide issue
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to:
1. Maintain comfortable and acceptable room temperat...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2023
10 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Abuse Prevention Policies
(Tag F0607)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement their elder and dependent adult abuse policy and procedures by failing to:
1. Ensure one out of three certified nursing assistant...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement their pressure ulcer (any lesion caused by ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Tube Feeding
(Tag F0693)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications of enteral feeding (a form of nutrition that is delivered...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure effective pain management was done by failing to document the pre and post pain assessments for one of one sampled resident (Residen...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0882
(Tag F0882)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure they had a designated Infection Preventionist (IP) that completed a specialized training on infection prevention and control to plan...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0885
(Tag F0885)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the resident's responsible party for one out of 25 sampled residents (Resident 7) by 5 p.m. the next calendar day following a confir...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0578
(Tag F0578)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide documented evidence that information about advance directives (written statement of a person's wishes regarding medical treatment m...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Pharmacy Services
(Tag F0755)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to:
1. Ensure the Controlled Drug Record form (CDR- accountability record of medications that are considered to have a strong potential for ab...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Food Safety
(Tag F0812)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to:
1. Keep food service personnel's personal items and belongings out from one out of five refrigerators (Refrigerator 11) per ...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Assessment Accuracy
(Tag F0641)
Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS-a standardized assessment...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • 26% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 22 points below California's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 31 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $24,030 in fines. Higher than 94% of California facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
- • Grade D (49/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
About This Facility
What is Encino Hospital Medical Center D/P Snf's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns ENCINO HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER D/P SNF an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within California, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.
How is Encino Hospital Medical Center D/P Snf Staffed?
CMS rates ENCINO HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER D/P SNF's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 26%, compared to the California average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Encino Hospital Medical Center D/P Snf?
State health inspectors documented 31 deficiencies at ENCINO HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER D/P SNF during 2023 to 2024. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 29 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.
Who Owns and Operates Encino Hospital Medical Center D/P Snf?
ENCINO HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER D/P SNF is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by PRIME HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 28 certified beds and approximately 24 residents (about 86% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in ENCINO, California.
How Does Encino Hospital Medical Center D/P Snf Compare to Other California Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in California, ENCINO HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER D/P SNF's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (26%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Encino Hospital Medical Center D/P Snf?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.
Is Encino Hospital Medical Center D/P Snf Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, ENCINO HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER D/P SNF has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in California. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.
Do Nurses at Encino Hospital Medical Center D/P Snf Stick Around?
Staff at ENCINO HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER D/P SNF tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 26%, the facility is 19 percentage points below the California average of 46%. Low turnover is a positive sign. It means caregivers have time to learn each resident's needs, medications, and personal preferences. Consistent staff also notice subtle changes in a resident's condition more quickly. Registered Nurse turnover is also low at 27%, meaning experienced RNs are available to handle complex medical needs.
Was Encino Hospital Medical Center D/P Snf Ever Fined?
ENCINO HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER D/P SNF has been fined $24,030 across 1 penalty action. This is below the California average of $33,319. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.
Is Encino Hospital Medical Center D/P Snf on Any Federal Watch List?
ENCINO HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER D/P SNF is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.