EAST LOS ANGELES DOCTORS HOSP
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
East Los Angeles Doctors Hospital has a Trust Grade of B+, which means it is above average and generally recommended for families considering care options. It ranks #67 out of 1,155 facilities in California, placing it in the top half statewide, and #12 out of 369 in Los Angeles County, indicating that only 11 local facilities are better. The facility is improving, with the number of issues decreasing from 13 in 2023 to 7 in 2024, showing positive progress. Staffing is rated 4 out of 5 stars, with a turnover rate of 31%, which is better than the state average, suggesting that staff members remain long enough to build relationships with residents. Notably, there have been no fines, which is a good sign of compliance, and the facility has more RN coverage than 87% of similar facilities, ensuring higher quality care. However, there are concerns as the facility did not ensure that daily RNA services were performed for several residents, which could lead to declines in their functional mobility. Additionally, care plans addressing range of motion were not implemented for multiple residents, posing a risk to their quality of life. While there are strengths in staffing and RN coverage, these deficiencies highlight areas that need improvement to fully support resident health and well-being.
- Trust Score
- B+
- In California
- #67/1155
- Safety Record
- Low Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Better
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 31% turnover. Near California's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ✓ Good
- No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most California facilities.
- Skilled Nurses ✓ Good
- Each resident gets 104 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
- 20 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (31%)
17 points below California average of 48%
Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
14pts below California avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
The Ugly 20 deficiencies on record
Nov 2024
7 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 interview and records review the facility's staff failed to:
1. Ensure one out of two sampled residents (Resident 13) r...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0657
(Tag F0657)
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:
1. Ensure one out of two sampled residents (Resident 12) had a revi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0711
(Tag F0711)
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:
1. Ensure one out of two sampled residents (Resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0773
(Tag F0773)
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:
1. Ensure laboratory test (a medical procedure that involves testi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
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:
1. Ensure one out of two sampled residents (Resident ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Antibiotic Stewardship
(Tag F0881)
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:
1. Complete the Revised McGeer Criteria (minimum set of signs and ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to:
1. Ensure RNA services were performed daily for five ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2023
1 deficiency
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 ensure that food items were labeled and expired food was not stored in the kitchen accessible to be used in preparing foods fo...
Read full inspector narrative →
May 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
Pressure Ulcer Prevention
(Tag F0686)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow facility's policies and patient's care plan to prevent further damage to Patient 1's wounds at bilateral buttocks.
This deficient p...
Read full inspector narrative →
Jan 2023
11 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
PASARR Coordination
(Tag F0644)
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 one of three sampled resident's (Resident 12) Preadmission S...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0694
(Tag F0694)
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 remove an intravenous (IV, within the vein) catheter ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Respiratory Care
(Tag F0695)
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 provide tracheal (windpipe) suctioning (method of rem...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0761
(Tag F0761)
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 one of two resident's (Resident 72) medication...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
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 two of three sampled residents' (Resident 16 and 17) informe...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Antibiotic Stewardship
(Tag F0881)
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 implement their policy and procedure for Antibiotic Stewardship Pro...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Comprehensive Care Plan
(Tag F0656)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement a resident care plan titled, Range of Motion(ROM)/ Joint ...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement the physician orders and care plans addressing range of m...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0725
(Tag F0725)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based interview and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate Restorative Nursing Assistant (RNA) staff to provide ...
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 follow guidelines to prevent food contamination and the spread of foodborne illness for one of one kitchen when:
1. [NAME] 1'...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0868
(Tag F0868)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on interview and record review, the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance Committee (QAA) failed to meet the minimum requirements for committee members.
This deficient practice had the pot...
Read full inspector narrative →
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Questions to Ask on Your Visit
- "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
- "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"
Our Honest Assessment
- • Grade B+ (85/100). Above average facility, better than most options in California.
- • No major safety red flags. No abuse findings, life-threatening violations, or SFF status.
- • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most California facilities.
- • 31% turnover. Below California's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • 20 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
About This Facility
What is East Los Angeles Doctors Hosp's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns EAST LOS ANGELES DOCTORS HOSP an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much above average nationally. Within California, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.
How is East Los Angeles Doctors Hosp Staffed?
CMS rates EAST LOS ANGELES DOCTORS HOSP's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 31%, compared to the California average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at East Los Angeles Doctors Hosp?
State health inspectors documented 20 deficiencies at EAST LOS ANGELES DOCTORS HOSP during 2023 to 2024. These included: 20 with potential for harm.
Who Owns and Operates East Los Angeles Doctors Hosp?
EAST LOS ANGELES DOCTORS HOSP is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 25 certified beds and approximately 23 residents (about 92% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in LOS ANGELES, California.
How Does East Los Angeles Doctors Hosp Compare to Other California Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in California, EAST LOS ANGELES DOCTORS HOSP's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (31%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (5 stars) is much above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting East Los Angeles Doctors Hosp?
Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?"
Is East Los Angeles Doctors Hosp Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, EAST LOS ANGELES DOCTORS HOSP has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in California. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.
Do Nurses at East Los Angeles Doctors Hosp Stick Around?
EAST LOS ANGELES DOCTORS HOSP has a staff turnover rate of 31%, which is about average for California nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.
Was East Los Angeles Doctors Hosp Ever Fined?
EAST LOS ANGELES DOCTORS HOSP has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.
Is East Los Angeles Doctors Hosp on Any Federal Watch List?
EAST LOS ANGELES DOCTORS HOSP 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.