California ›Granada Hills

Granada Hills Convalescent

16123 Chatsworth Ave, Granada Hills, CA 91344 · Los Angeles County · 48 certified beds · avg 38 residents/day · certified since Sep 1, 1969

3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
1
Serious findings on record
$8,018
Fines, last 3 years
5.05
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)

Health inspection rating: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 5/5

The health inspection star above is graded on a curve within each state — a set share of each state's facilities gets each star level — so a facility can have few citations and still rate 2–3 stars if others in its state did even better. The overall rating combines that inspection score with staffing and self-reported quality measures.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Actual harm, one-off · Oct 2, 2023 · F-0689

The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.

Why it matters: This is one of the most common citations and directly relates to falls and injuries, which can be devastating for older adults.

Severity (G): One or a few residents were actually harmed — physically or emotionally — though not put in immediate danger of serious injury or death.

Corrected: Oct 17, 2023 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (37)

CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed.

DateSeverityWhat the facility was cited for
Nov 18, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment.
Nov 18, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines.
Nov 18, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Nov 18, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Nov 18, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication.
Nov 18, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have enough support staff to safely and effectively run its food and nutrition service.
Nov 18, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not prepare and serve food in a form that meets each resident's individual needs — for example, chopped, pureed, or softened food for residents with chewing or swallowing problems.
Nov 18, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups.
Nov 18, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
Nov 18, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not honor residents' right to voice complaints without discrimination or retaliation, or did not have a working complaint process that resolves issues promptly.
Nov 18, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide appropriate care related to bladder and bowel needs — including care for residents who use catheters and steps to prevent urinary tract infections.
Nov 18, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not safely and appropriately administer IV fluids (fluids given through a vein) for residents who needed them.
Nov 18, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail.
Nov 18, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide.
Nov 18, 2025B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe facility did not give residents proper notice about what Medicare or Medicaid covers, or about charges the resident might owe for services that aren't covered.
Nov 18, 2025B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms.
Oct 3, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment.
Oct 3, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Oct 3, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Oct 3, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication.
Oct 3, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide.
Oct 3, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make reasonable adjustments to fit each resident's individual needs and preferences — things like call buttons within reach, preferred wake-up times, or accessible room setups.
Oct 3, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility used feeding tubes without a valid medical reason or the resident's agreement, or did not provide proper care to residents who have feeding tubes.
Oct 3, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide safe and appropriate respiratory care — such as oxygen, breathing treatments, or care for residents on breathing equipment — for residents who needed it.
Oct 3, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.
Oct 3, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep residents' medications free from unnecessary drugs. Residents should only take medicines they truly need, at the right dose, for a clear reason.
Oct 3, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock.
Oct 3, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Oct 3, 2024B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms.
Jan 29, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide. · from a complaint
Oct 2, 2023▲ G · Actual harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls.
Oct 2, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential.
Oct 2, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop or follow a complete care plan for each resident — the written roadmap covering all of a resident's needs, with measurable goals and timelines.
Oct 2, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow.
Oct 2, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not label drugs according to professional standards or did not store them in locked compartments, with controlled drugs (medications with a high risk of misuse) kept under a separate lock.
Oct 2, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have or follow an effective program to prevent and control infections — such as proper hand washing, cleaning, and isolation practices. This is the most commonly cited deficiency nationwide.
Oct 2, 2023B · Minimal risk, repeatedThe facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (13 → 16).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202371G ▲
2024140E
2025160E

Counts reflect the current CMS public record (~3 inspection cycles plus complaint investigations); years with no surveys show no row. Inspection frequency varies, so compare severity as well as counts.

Fines and enforcement (last 3 years)

1 fine totaling $8,018.

DateTypeAmount / length
Oct 2, 2023Fine$8,018

Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)

MeasureThis facilityCalifornia avgU.S. avgWhere it stands
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)5.054.313.95top 14% in California; top 12% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.760.610.69top 19% in California; top 30% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing4.853.903.50top 9% in California; top 8% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.790.510.48top 12% in California; top 12% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)13.736.745.8top 2% in California; top 1% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)28.638.142.9top 33% in California; top 26% in the U.S.

Hours are per resident per day, case-mix adjusted by CMS so facilities caring for sicker residents can be compared fairly (same basis as the CMS staffing star). "Top X%" means better than most facilities: more staffing hours, or lower turnover. Raw (unadjusted) reported hours: total 5.15, RN 0.78, weekend 4.93. Staffing rating: 5/5.

Self-reported quality measures

Note: these ratings are based on data the facility reports about itself to CMS. They are not independently verified by inspectors, and can look better than inspection findings. Give more weight to the inspection results above.

Quality measures rating: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: 5/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Marconet, KimberlyIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest100%06/01/2003
Marconet, KimberlyIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2003
Marconet, KimberlyIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2003
Marconet, KimberlyIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE12/12/2024
Marconet, KimberlyIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE12/12/2024
Michail, ReyadhIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2011
Michail, ReyadhIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2011
Villareal, LauraIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE07/06/2013
Villareal, LauraIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE07/06/2013
Wasden, StacyIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE12/23/2019
Wasden, StacyIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE12/23/2019

Questions to ask on your visit

Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.

Nearby facilities (within 20 miles)

FacilityDistanceCityOverallInspectionFlags
Rinaldi Convalescent Hospital1.1 miGranada Hills, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5
Casitas Care Center1.1 miGranada Hills, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
The Rehabilitation Center of North Hills1.4 miNorth Hills, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5
Providence Holy Cross Med Ctr D/P SNF1.6 miMission Hills, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5
Ararat Nursing Facility1.6 miMission Hills, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5abuseSFF
Panorama Gardens Nursing and Rehabilitation Center2.3 miPanorama City, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Magnolia Gardens Convalescent Hospital2.3 miGranada Hills, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5
The Gardens Healthcare Center2.3 miNorthridge, CA★★★☆☆2/5
The Meadows Post Acute3.2 miPanorama City, CA★★☆☆☆1/5
The Grove Post-Acute Care Center3.2 miSylmar, CA★★☆☆☆1/5
Astoria Healthcare Center3.9 miSylmar, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5SFF
Terrace Post Acute4.1 miVan Nuys, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Granada Hills →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 056168.