How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Ivy Creek Healthcare & Wellness Centre
115 Bridge St., San Gabriel, CA 91775 (opens Google Maps) · Los Angeles County · (626) 289-4439· 98 certified beds · avg 93 residents/day · certified since Jan 1, 1967 · Medicare and Medicaid certified
Certified for both programmes. Certification means the facility can bill Medicaid — it does not mean a Medicaid-funded bed is free right now, so ask directly. Who pays for nursing home care →
Part of chain: CORPORATE INTERFACE SERVICES (40 facilities, chain avg rating 2.5★)
4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected May 21, 2026
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.01
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)
Every record stays on this page.
What health inspectors found (on-site government inspections — the most independent evidence available)
New to these records? How to read an inspection report →
Health inspection rating: ★★★★☆4/5 · CMS overall rating: 4/5 · how star ratings work →
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 quality measures from resident assessments and claims.
Inspection findings in the public record
Showing the latest 3 of 44 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
The 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. F-0550
The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · from a complaint F-0921
The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. F-0641
View all 44 inspection findingsShow only the latest 3 findings
CMS publishes roughly the last three inspection cycles plus recent complaint investigations. Older surveys drop out of the record as new ones are completed — that window is CMS's, not ours. Within it, every citation CMS publishes for this facility is listed here: none excluded.
| Date | Severity | What the facility was cited for |
|---|---|---|
| May 21, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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. · F-0550 |
| May 21, 2026 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · from a complaint · F-0921 |
| May 21, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives. · F-0641 |
| May 21, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0645 |
| May 21, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0656 |
| May 21, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0677 |
| May 21, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0757 |
| May 21, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0880 |
| May 21, 2026 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 · F-0919 |
| Dec 19, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 · F-0744 |
| Apr 10, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide safe, appropriate care for residents who need dialysis — the treatment that filters the blood when kidneys fail. · F-0698 |
| Apr 10, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist. · F-0755 |
| Apr 10, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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. · F-0759 |
| Apr 10, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly. · F-0814 |
| Apr 10, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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. · F-0880 |
| Apr 10, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0550 |
| Apr 10, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0656 |
| Apr 10, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0657 |
| Apr 10, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684 |
| Apr 10, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · F-0842 |
| Apr 10, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0919 |
| Apr 10, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · F-0921 |
| Apr 10, 2025 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms. · F-0912 |
| Feb 25, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards. · from a complaint · F-0842 |
| Feb 5, 2025 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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 · F-0676 |
| Feb 5, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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 · F-0609 |
| Apr 12, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · F-0584 |
| Apr 12, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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. · F-0695 |
| Apr 12, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards. · F-0812 |
| Apr 12, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0550 |
| Apr 12, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0558 |
| Apr 12, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · F-0583 |
| Apr 12, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0642 |
| Apr 12, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0656 |
| Apr 12, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0676 |
| Apr 12, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals. · F-0684 |
| Apr 12, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0849 |
| Apr 12, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0880 |
| Apr 12, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. · F-0908 |
| Apr 12, 2024 | B · Potential for minimal harm, pattern | The facility had resident rooms smaller than required — at least 80 square feet per person in shared rooms and 100 square feet in single rooms. · F-0912 |
| Jan 24, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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 · F-0880 |
| Jan 24, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep its building and grounds safe, functional, clean, and comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. · from a complaint · F-0921 |
| Nov 16, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · from a complaint · F-0689 |
| Aug 29, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The 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 · F-0880 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections decreased between the last two inspection cycles (13 → 9).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 2
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 16
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 17
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2026
All citations: 9
Serious citations (G–L): 0
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Year | Citations | Serious (G–L) | Worst severity that year |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 2 | 0 | E |
| 2024 | 16 | 0 | E |
| 2025 | 17 | 0 | E |
| 2026 | 9 | 0 | E |
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)
Nurse staffing (from payroll records, adjusted for how much care residents need)
What these staffing numbers mean →
This facilityCalifornia averageU.S. average
Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)
This facility: 4.01
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 0.53
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.68
California average: 3.90
U.S. average: 3.50
All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.
| Measure | This facility | California avg | U.S. avg | Where it stands |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day) | 4.01 | 4.31 | 3.95 | bottom 42% in California; top 39% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 0.53 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 42% in California; bottom 42% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.68 | 3.90 | 3.50 | bottom 45% in California; top 34% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 0.36 | 0.51 | 0.48 | bottom 48% in California; bottom 45% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | — | 36.7 | 45.8 | — |
| RN turnover (%) | — | 38.1 | 42.9 | — |
Hours are per resident per day for the most recent quarter of payroll data in this CMS release (2026-08-01) — the same quarter for every facility — 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.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (3.95 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 3/5.
Quality measures: assessments & claims
Note: CMS combines facility-reported resident assessments (MDS) with claims-based measures. These are different sources from on-site inspection findings. Read the measures alongside inspection and staffing records; a high QM rating does not establish that a home is safe.
Quality measures rating: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Ivy Creek Healthcare & Wellness Centre. CMS inspection and staffing records do not tell us what this home will charge you.
Calculate a stay from a quote you receive
Use a written private-pay quote. This worksheet adds only the amounts you enter; it does not calculate Medicare, Medicaid or insurance benefits.
Formula: (room rate + daily extras) × days + one-time charges. A 30-day scenario is not a calendar-month quote. Refundable deposits, rate changes and charges you omit are not automatically included. Entries are not saved or sent to our server.
Before you compare prices
- Request the room type, effective date and itemized daily rate in writing.
- Ask about therapy, medicines, supplies, care-level charges, deposits, refunds and annual increases.
- Confirm insurance or Medicaid eligibility and bed availability directly; certification alone does not guarantee either.
Understand who pays for care · How we handle price evidence · Report an incorrect price
Who owns this facility
How to read ownership records →
Ownership records as published by CMS on 2026-08-01. CMS records when an owner joined but not when they left. Listed here and no longer involved? Tell us →
For profit - Limited Liability company
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eretz Ivy Creek Properties LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 08/01/2012 |
| G4 Wellness GP LLC | Organization | General Partnership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2012 |
| Qiu, Bosheng | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2025 |
| Qiu, Bosheng | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2025 |
| Rechnitz, Shlomo | Individual | Limited Partnership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2012 |
| Rockport Administrative Services, LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2012 |
| Rockport Administrative Services, LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2012 |
| Weiss, Jonathan | Individual | Limited Partnership Interest | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2012 |
| Yu, Candace | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/03/2022 |
| Yu, Candace | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/03/2022 |
All 10 owning or managing parties CMS has on file are shown — none excluded.
Other facilities in the same chain
CMS lists this facility under the chain Corporate Interface Services — 40 facilities in the current records. Chain membership says who operates these homes. It says nothing about how any individual one of them was inspected; each has its own record.
- Kings Healthcare & Wellness Center LP — Hanford, CA · overall 4/5
- Los Feliz Healthcare & Wellness Center, LP — Los Angeles, CA · overall 1/5
- Mar Vista Country Villa Healthcare & Wellness — Los Angeles, CA · overall 1/5abuse
- Montecito Heights Healthcare & Wellness Centre, LP — Los Angeles, CA · overall 2/5
- Monterey Healthcare & Wellness Centre, LP — Rosemead, CA · overall 3/5
- North Point Healthcare & Wellness Centre LP — Fresno, CA · overall 5/5
- Oakwood Healthcare Center — Chico, CA · overall 1/5abuse
- Ontario Grove Healthcare & Wellness Centre, LP — Ontario, CA · overall 3/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 39 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "Can you give me examples of how your staff protect residents' dignity in everyday care, like bathing and dressing?"
- "Can we tour the whole building today, including resident bathrooms and common areas, not just the lobby?"
- "Who completes resident assessments here, and how do you check them for accuracy?"
- "How do you screen new residents for mental health and disability-related needs, and how do you provide the specialized services they require?"
- "Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
- "How many aides are on each shift, and how do you make sure every resident gets timely help with bathing, dressing, and meals?"
- "How often is each resident's medication list reviewed, and who decides when a drug can be reduced or stopped?"
- "Who leads your infection prevention program, and how do you make sure staff follow practices like hand hygiene every day?"
Also worth asking anywhere
- "Your weekend nurse staffing is reported below the California midpoint — how does the weekend schedule differ from a weekday?"
- "Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
- "Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"
Nearby facilities (12 closest of 277 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| San Gabriel Valley Medical Ctr D/P SNF | 0.0 mi | San Gabriel, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Live Oak Rehab Center | 0.2 mi | San Gabriel, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuse |
| Royal Vista Care Center | 0.5 mi | San Gabriel, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Broadway Healthcare Center | 0.6 mi | San Gabriel, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 3/5 | |
| Alhambra Healthcare & Wellness Centre, LP | 1.0 mi | Alhambra, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Pine Grove Healthcare & Wellness Centre, LP | 1.1 mi | San Gabriel, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Mission Care Center | 1.4 mi | Rosemead, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| Atherton Baptist Home | 1.5 mi | Alhambra, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 | |
| Alhambra Hospital Med Ctr DP/SNF | 1.9 mi | Alhambra, CA | ★★★★☆ | 4/5 | |
| Heritage Manor | 2.4 mi | Monterey Park, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Sunny Village Care Center | 2.5 mi | Alhambra, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Monterey Park Conv Hosp | 2.6 mi | Monterey Park, CA | ★★★★★ | 4/5 |
Compare this facility with the 3 closest →
Other facilities in the same county
CMS records place this facility in Los Angeles, CA — 369 certified facilities there. These are outside the 20-mile list above, or far enough down it not to appear.
- Joyce Eisenberg Keefer Medical Center D/P SNF — Reseda, CA · overall 4/5
- Kei-Ai Los Angeles Healthcare Center — Los Angeles, CA · overall 1/5abuse
- Kei-Ai South Bay Healthcare Center — Gardena, CA · overall 3/5
- Kennedy Care Center — Los Angeles, CA · overall 1/5
- La Brea Rehabilitation Center — Los Angeles, CA · overall 1/5
- La Crescenta Healthcare Center — La Crescenta, CA · overall 5/5
- La Paz Geropsychiatric Center — Paramount, CA · overall 2/5abuse
- Lake Balboa Care Center — Van Nuys, CA · overall 4/5
Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.
Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 055441.