California ›San Gabriel

Ivy Creek Healthcare & Wellness Centre

115 Bridge St., San Gabriel, CA 91775 · Los Angeles County · 98 certified beds · avg 93 residents/day · certified since Jan 1, 1967

Part of chain: CORPORATE INTERFACE SERVICES (40 facilities, chain avg rating 2.5★)

4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.01
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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

Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5

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.

All citations in the current public record (44)

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
May 21, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights.
May 21, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · from a complaint
May 21, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives.
May 21, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not properly complete the required screening (called PASARR) that identifies whether a person entering a nursing home has a mental illness or intellectual disability and needs specialized services.
May 21, 2026D · 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.
May 21, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide the help residents need with basic daily activities — like bathing, dressing, eating, and using the bathroom — for residents who cannot do these things on their own.
May 21, 2026D · 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.
May 21, 2026D · 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.
May 21, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have a working call system — the button or cord residents use to summon help — in each resident's bathroom and bathing area. · from a complaint
Dec 19, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide the right treatment and services for residents with dementia or signs of dementia. Dementia care requires specific approaches, training, and patience. · from a complaint
Apr 10, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail.
Apr 10, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.
Apr 10, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility's medication error rate was 5 percent or higher — meaning too many doses were given incorrectly, such as the wrong drug, dose, or time.
Apr 10, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
Apr 10, 2025E · 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.
Apr 10, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights.
Apr 10, 2025D · 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.
Apr 10, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop a resident's complete plan of care within 7 days of the full assessment, or the plan wasn't prepared, reviewed, and updated by a team of health professionals as required.
Apr 10, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Apr 10, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Apr 10, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have a working call system — the button or cord residents use to summon help — in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
Apr 10, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors.
Apr 10, 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.
Feb 25, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint
Feb 5, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility allowed residents to lose the ability to do daily activities — like bathing, dressing, and eating — when there was no medical reason for the decline. Good care helps residents keep the abilities they have. · from a complaint
Feb 5, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft to the proper authorities quickly enough, or did not report the results of its investigation. · from a complaint
Apr 12, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
Apr 12, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Apr 12, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Apr 12, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not treat residents with dignity and respect, or did not honor their rights to make their own decisions and communicate freely. This is one of the most fundamental resident rights.
Apr 12, 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.
Apr 12, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential.
Apr 12, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure resident assessments were done by a qualified health professional. Assessments guide all of a resident's care, so the person doing them must be properly trained.
Apr 12, 2024D · 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.
Apr 12, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility allowed residents to lose the ability to do daily activities — like bathing, dressing, and eating — when there was no medical reason for the decline. Good care helps residents keep the abilities they have.
Apr 12, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Apr 12, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not arrange hospice services for a resident who needed them, or help the resident move to a facility that could arrange hospice. Hospice provides comfort-focused care for people nearing the end of life.
Apr 12, 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.
Apr 12, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices.
Apr 12, 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 24, 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. · from a complaint
Jan 24, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · from a complaint
Nov 16, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint
Aug 29, 2023E · 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. · from a complaint

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (13 → 9).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202320E
2024160E
2025170E
202690E

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)

No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.

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)4.014.313.95bottom 42% in California; top 39% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.530.610.69top 42% in California; bottom 42% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.683.903.50bottom 45% in California; top 34% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.360.510.48bottom 48% in California; bottom 45% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)0.036.745.8—
RN turnover (%)0.038.142.9—

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 3.95, RN 0.52, weekend 3.63. Staffing rating: 3/5.

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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Eretz Ivy Creek Properties LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE08/01/2012
G4 Wellness GP LLCOrganizationGeneral Partnership InterestNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2012
Qiu, BoshengIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2025
Qiu, BoshengIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/01/2025
Rechnitz, ShlomoIndividualLimited Partnership InterestNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2012
Rockport Administrative Services, LLCOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2012
Rockport Administrative Services, LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2012
Weiss, JonathanIndividualLimited Partnership InterestNOT APPLICABLE06/01/2012
Yu, CandaceIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE01/03/2022
Yu, CandaceIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE01/03/2022

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
San Gabriel Valley Medical Ctr D/P SNF0.0 miSan Gabriel, CA★★★★☆3/5
Live Oak Rehab Center0.2 miSan Gabriel, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5abuse
Royal Vista Care Center0.5 miSan Gabriel, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5
Broadway Healthcare Center0.6 miSan Gabriel, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Alhambra Healthcare & Wellness Centre, LP1.0 miAlhambra, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Pine Grove Healthcare & Wellness Centre, LP1.1 miSan Gabriel, CA★★★★☆3/5
Mission Care Center1.4 miRosemead, CA★★★★☆3/5
Atherton Baptist Home1.5 miAlhambra, CA★★★★★4/5
Alhambra Hospital Med Ctr DP/SNF1.9 miAlhambra, CA★★★★☆4/5
Heritage Manor2.4 miMonterey Park, CA★★☆☆☆1/5
Sunny Village Care Center2.5 miAlhambra, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Monterey Park Conv Hosp2.6 miMonterey Park, CA★★★★★4/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in San Gabriel →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 055441.