WHITTIER NURSING AND WELLNESS CENTER, INC
Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.
Whittier Nursing and Wellness Center has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is slightly above average but still has room for improvement. It ranks #271 out of 1,155 facilities in California, placing it in the top half, and #42 out of 369 in Los Angeles County, meaning only one local option is better. Unfortunately, the facility is experiencing a worsening trend, with the number of reported issues increasing from 8 to 13 in just one year. Staffing is rated as average, with a turnover rate of 36%, which is better than the state average, but there is concerningly less RN coverage than 90% of California facilities. The center has faced some significant deficiencies, including failing to develop appropriate care plans for a resident with a history of substance abuse, which could lead to serious health risks. Additionally, residents reported issues with not receiving their personal mail on Saturdays, which could result in missed important correspondence. There was also a failure to post accurate staffing data in an easily visible location, potentially compromising care quality. Families should weigh these strengths and weaknesses carefully when considering Whittier Nursing and Wellness Center for their loved ones.
- Trust Score
- C+
- In California
- #271/1155
- Safety Record
- High Risk
- Inspections
- Getting Worse
- Staff Stability ○ Average
- 36% turnover. Near California's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
- Penalties ⚠ Watch
- $13,627 in fines. Higher than 90% of California facilities. Major compliance failures.
- Skilled Nurses ⚠ Watch
- Each resident gets only 16 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for California. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
- Violations ⚠ Watch
- 31 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
The Good
-
5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
-
Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
-
No fines on record
-
Staff turnover below average (36%)
12 points below California average of 48%
Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.
The Bad
10pts below California avg (46%)
Typical for the industry
Below median ($33,413)
Minor penalties assessed
The Ugly 31 deficiencies on record
Dec 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 F0558
(Tag F0558)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a comfortable and homelike environment to one of thirteen sampled residents (Resident 2) by failing to provide the re...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2024
8 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0658
(Tag F0658)
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 the professional standard of practice and t...
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 provide pharmaceutical services as indicated in the facility's policy and procedure title Administering Medications for one of 3 sampled re...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0919
(Tag F0919)
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 the call light was in good functioning conditi...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0576
(Tag F0576)
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 ensure six of 6 sampled residents (Resident 28, 20, 2...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Staffing Information
(Tag F0732)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to post an accurate facility staffing data in a prominent place where 32 of 32 residents and their representaives and visitors c...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. During a review of Resident 27 ' s admission Record (Face Sheet), dated 10/23/2021, the face sheet indicated the facility adm...
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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow the facility ' s infection control policy and procedure for three of 3 sampled residents (Resident 11, 16, and 19) by ...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0912
(Tag F0912)
Minor procedural issue · 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 provide a minimum of 80 square feet (sq. ft., unit of ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Sept 2024
4 deficiencies
1 IJ
CRITICAL
(J)
📢 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
Deficiency F0740
(Tag F0740)
Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide necessary services (drug counseling and surveillance [monit...
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
Deficiency F0635
(Tag F0635)
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 residents received treatment and care in accordance with pr...
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
Deficiency F0697
(Tag F0697)
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 manage a resident ' s pain timely and effectively for ...
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
Smoking Policies
(Tag F0926)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to follow the facility ' s policy and procedure (P&P) titled Smoking Schedule to ensure staff supervision during smoke breaks was...
Read full inspector narrative →
Nov 2023
8 deficiencies
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 assess, monitor, inform the physician and provide necessary care and services in accordance with the facility's policy and pro...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0757
(Tag F0757)
Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to prevent unnecessary use of medication for one of one sampled resident (Resident 24) who was not monitored for bruising and bleeding while r...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Resident Rights
(Tag F0550)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to promote and treat two of 2 residents (Resident 20 and 83) with respect, privacy and dignity by failing to ensure:
1. Resident...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0558
(Tag F0558)
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 provide reasonable accommodation of need for three of ...
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
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure three (3) opened bottles of Enulose (also known...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Medical Records
(Tag F0842)
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, facility failed to follow the facility's policy and procedure titled Confide...
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** 2. A review of Resident 137's Face Sheet (a document that gives a patient's information at a quick glance) indicated a readmissi...
Read full inspector narrative →
MINOR
(B)
Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact
Deficiency F0912
(Tag F0912)
Minor procedural issue · 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 provide a minimum of 80 square feet (sq. ft., unit of ...
Read full inspector narrative →
Mar 2022
10 deficiencies
CONCERN
(D)
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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three sampled residents (Resident 6), w...
Read full inspector narrative →
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 conduct a screening one of five sampled employees (Licensed Vocational Nurse 1) in accordance with the facility's abuse policy. The facilit...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0676
(Tag F0676)
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 one of three residents (Resident 13) with a c...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
ADL Care
(Tag F0677)
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 oral (mouth) care to one of 12 sampled reside...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(D)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0688
(Tag F0688)
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 joint range of motion (ROM, full movement pote...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Quality of Care
(Tag F0684)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** c. A review of Resident 15's admission Record indicated the resident admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that incl...
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 ensure that food items were stored under sanitary conditions. During a general observation in the kitchen, the following were...
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** b. During an observation and interview on 3/7/22 at 10:46 AM, a Licensed Vocational Nurse 1 (LVN 1) stated that Resident 19's O2...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Antibiotic Stewardship
(Tag F0881)
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 ensure three of three residents (Residents 1, 15 and 1...
Read full inspector narrative →
CONCERN
(E)
Potential for Harm - no one hurt, but risky conditions existed
Deficiency F0912
(Tag F0912)
Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that 14 of 18 resident bedrooms (Rooms 1, 2, 3, 4 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16) met the minimum 80 square fe...
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
- • 36% turnover. Below California's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
- • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
- • 31 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
- • $13,627 in fines. Above average for California. Some compliance problems on record.
About This Facility
What is Whittier Nursing And Wellness Center, Inc's CMS Rating?
CMS assigns WHITTIER NURSING AND WELLNESS CENTER, INC 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 Whittier Nursing And Wellness Center, Inc Staffed?
CMS rates WHITTIER NURSING AND WELLNESS CENTER, INC's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 36%, compared to the California average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.
What Have Inspectors Found at Whittier Nursing And Wellness Center, Inc?
State health inspectors documented 31 deficiencies at WHITTIER NURSING AND WELLNESS CENTER, INC during 2022 to 2024. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 28 with potential for harm, and 2 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 Whittier Nursing And Wellness Center, Inc?
WHITTIER NURSING AND WELLNESS CENTER, INC 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 36 certified beds and approximately 31 residents (about 86% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in WHITTIER, California.
How Does Whittier Nursing And Wellness Center, Inc Compare to Other California Nursing Homes?
Compared to the 100 nursing homes in California, WHITTIER NURSING AND WELLNESS CENTER, INC's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (36%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.
What Should Families Ask When Visiting Whittier Nursing And Wellness Center, Inc?
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 Whittier Nursing And Wellness Center, Inc Safe?
Based on CMS inspection data, WHITTIER NURSING AND WELLNESS CENTER, INC 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 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 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 Whittier Nursing And Wellness Center, Inc Stick Around?
WHITTIER NURSING AND WELLNESS CENTER, INC has a staff turnover rate of 36%, 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 Whittier Nursing And Wellness Center, Inc Ever Fined?
WHITTIER NURSING AND WELLNESS CENTER, INC has been fined $13,627 across 1 penalty action. This is below the California average of $33,215. 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 Whittier Nursing And Wellness Center, Inc on Any Federal Watch List?
WHITTIER NURSING AND WELLNESS CENTER, INC 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.