CaliforniaLos Angeles

Lotus Care Center

6011 West Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90043 · Los Angeles County · 40 certified beds · avg 35 residents/day · certified since Dec 1, 1979

4/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.53
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 (24)

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
Feb 13, 2026E · 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.
Feb 13, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not honor residents' rights to request, refuse, or stop treatment, to decline participation in medical research, or to make an advance directive — a written statement of their wishes for future medical care.
Feb 13, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not immediately notify the resident, their doctor, and a family member when something significant happened — such as an injury, a decline in health, or a room change. Families and doctors are entitled to know right away.
Feb 13, 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.
Feb 13, 2026D · 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.
Feb 13, 2026B · 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 18, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Oct 18, 2024F · Potential for harm, facility-wideThe 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 18, 2024D · 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.
Oct 18, 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.
Oct 18, 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.
Oct 18, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident.
Oct 18, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not have a licensed pharmacist review each resident's complete medication regimen and medical chart every month, or did not follow its own rules for reporting medication problems.
Oct 18, 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 18, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not dispose of garbage and refuse properly.
Oct 18, 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 18, 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.
Sep 25, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not keep all essential equipment working safely — things like heating and cooling systems, kitchen equipment, and medical devices. · from a complaint
Sep 25, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide proper care for pressure ulcers (bedsores) or did not do enough to prevent new ones from forming. Bedsores develop when residents stay in one position too long without help moving. · from a complaint
Oct 22, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not accurately assess a resident's health and needs. Assessments are the foundation for all the care a resident receives.
Oct 22, 2023E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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 22, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not coordinate resident assessments with the state's pre-admission screening program for mental illness and intellectual disabilities, or failed to refer residents for the special services they need.
Oct 22, 2023D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not get its food from approved, safe sources, or did not store, prepare, and serve food according to professional food safety standards.
Oct 22, 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 decreased between the last two inspection cycles (11 → 6).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
202350E
2024130F
202660E

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)4.534.313.95top 28% in California; top 22% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.430.610.69bottom 39% in California; bottom 26% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing4.543.903.50top 13% in California; top 11% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.360.510.48bottom 47% in California; bottom 44% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)35.736.745.8top 49% in California; top 26% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)40.038.142.9bottom 47% in California; top 46% 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 4.16, RN 0.39, weekend 4.17. Staffing rating: 4/5.

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: 4/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Corporation

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Bhatia, SonaIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest50%03/01/2023
Bhatia, TaniaIndividual5% or Greater Indirect Ownership Interest50%03/01/2023
SB 2020 Protective TrustOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest50%03/01/2023
TB 2020 Protective TrustOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest50%03/01/2023
Bhatia, SonaIndividualW-2 Managing EmployeeNOT APPLICABLE08/01/2012
Bhatia, SonaIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE03/01/2023
Bhatia, SonaIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE03/01/2023
Bhatia, TaniaIndividualCorporate DirectorNOT APPLICABLE03/01/2023
Bhatia, TaniaIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE03/01/2023
Great Neck Management INCOrganizationOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2015

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
Hyde Park Healthcare Center0.4 miLos Angeles, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5abuseSFF
Primrose Post-Acute1.0 miInglewood, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Century Villa, INC1.2 miInglewood, CA★☆☆☆☆2/5abuse
View Park Convalescent Center1.5 miLos Angeles, CA★★★☆☆2/5
Inglewood Health Care Center1.7 miInglewood, CA★★☆☆☆1/5abuse
Centinela Skilled Nursing & Wellness Centre West2.4 miInglewood, CA★★★★★4/5
Osage Healthcare & Wellness Centre2.5 miInglewood, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Marycrest Manor2.5 miCulver City, CA★★★★★4/5
Vernon Healthcare Center3.1 miLos Angeles, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5
Manchester Healthcare Center3.4 miLos Angeles, CA★★☆☆☆2/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Los Angeles →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555040.