California ›El Monte

Santa Fe Lodge

5053 Peck Rd., El Monte, CA 91732 · Los Angeles County · 46 certified beds · avg 44 residents/day · certified since Nov 16, 1978 · 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: LONGWOOD MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (38 facilities, chain avg rating 2.2★)

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
1
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
5.02
Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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

Health inspection rating: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5

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)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, repeated · Jan 19, 2024 · F-0603 · triggered by a complaint

The facility did not protect residents from being involuntarily separated — kept apart from other residents, kept out of their own room, or confined to their room. Isolating a resident this way is a form of mistreatment.

Why it matters: Forced isolation is emotionally harmful and can hide neglect or abuse from view.

Severity (K): A life-threatening or extremely dangerous situation affected several residents. Among the most serious findings an inspection can produce.

Corrected: Feb 12, 2024 (Deficient, Provider has date of correction)

All citations in the current public record (50)

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
Jun 30, 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. · from a complaint
Jun 30, 2026D · 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
May 8, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand.
May 8, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility gave residents unnecessary mind-altering (psychotropic) medications, or used drugs in a way that restrained residents by dulling their ability to think, move, or function.
May 8, 2026E · 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.
May 8, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration.
May 8, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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 8, 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.
May 8, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have a working program to monitor how antibiotics are used. Tracking antibiotic use helps make sure these drugs are given only when needed and remain effective.
May 8, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide required paperwork or notices about a resident's needs, their right to appeal a transfer or discharge, or the facility's bed-hold policy (how long a bed is saved during a hospital stay).
May 8, 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 8, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Apr 7, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not train its staff on dementia care and on recognizing and reporting abuse, neglect, and exploitation. · from a complaint
Apr 7, 2026D · 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
Feb 5, 2026D · 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. · from a complaint
Mar 20, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand.
Mar 20, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Mar 20, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide treatment and care that follows the doctor's orders and matches the resident's own preferences and goals.
Mar 20, 2025E · 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.
Mar 20, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not properly inform residents or their representatives about arbitration agreements — contracts that give up the right to sue in court — including their right to refuse to sign.
Mar 20, 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.
Mar 20, 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.
Mar 20, 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.
Mar 20, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not reassess a resident after a significant change in their condition, such as a sudden decline in health. A full new assessment is required when a resident's condition changes in a major way.
Mar 20, 2025D · 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.
Mar 20, 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.
Mar 20, 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 22, 2024D · 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
Sep 11, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs. · from a complaint
Mar 7, 2024E · 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.
Mar 7, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Mar 7, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not let a resident help develop and carry out their own plan of care — the written roadmap of the services and support they'll receive, built around their personal goals and preferences.
Mar 7, 2024D · 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.
Mar 7, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Mar 7, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not fully assess residents on time — a complete assessment of health, abilities, and needs is required when a resident is first admitted and at least once every 12 months after that.
Mar 7, 2024D · 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.
Mar 7, 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.
Mar 7, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide the care needed to maintain or improve residents' movement and flexibility — such as range-of-motion exercises — leading to avoidable decline.
Mar 7, 2024D · 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.
Mar 7, 2024D · 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.
Mar 7, 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.
Mar 7, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide timely, quality laboratory tests to meet residents' needs.
Mar 7, 2024D · 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.
Mar 7, 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.
Mar 7, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide a neutral and fair arbitration process. Arbitration is a way of settling disputes outside of court, and if it's used, the facility must agree with the resident on a neutral arbitrator and a convenient location.
Mar 7, 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.
Mar 7, 2024D · 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.
Mar 7, 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 19, 2024▲ K · Immediate jeopardy, repeatedThe facility did not protect residents from being involuntarily separated — kept apart from other residents, kept out of their own room, or confined to their room. Isolating a resident this way is a form of mistreatment. · from a complaint
Jan 19, 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. · from a complaint

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (12 → 10).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2024231K ▲
2025120E
2026150E

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)5.024.313.95top 14% in California; top 13% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.380.610.69bottom 27% in California; bottom 19% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing4.593.903.50top 12% in California; top 11% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.200.510.48bottom 11% in California; bottom 13% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)41.336.745.8bottom 34% in California; top 40% in the U.S.
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 4.26, RN 0.32, weekend 3.89. 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: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 2/5 · short-stay residents: 3/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Friedman Family TrustOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest20%06/30/2023
Ira D Friedman 1991 TrustOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest20%06/30/2023
Lehmann Family 1991 TrustOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest20%06/30/2023
The Klavan Family TrustOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest20%06/30/2023
The Tzippy Friedman Notis 1990 TrustOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest20%06/30/2023
Aaron Friedman Group a Business Assets TrustOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE06/30/2023
Estandarte, NoelIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/12/2023
Estandarte, NoelIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE06/12/2023
FLT Acquisitions LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE06/30/2023
Friedman, AaronIndividualIndividual Is an Owner, Partner or Trustee of Any ADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE10/08/2025
Friedman, AaronIndividualTrustee of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE06/30/2023
Friedman, AaronIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE06/30/2023
Friedman, IraIndividualCorporate OfficerNOT APPLICABLE06/30/2023
Friedman, IraIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/30/2023
Friedman, IraIndividualTrustee of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE06/30/2023
Friedman, IraIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE06/30/2023
Ira David Friedman Group a Business Assets TrustOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE06/30/2023
Klavan, JoshuaIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE12/01/2022
Klavan, JoshuaIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE11/16/1986
Klavan, RachelIndividualTrustee of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE06/30/2023

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
Mayflower Care Center0.0 miEl Monte, CA★★★☆☆3/5
The Gardens of el Monte0.9 miEl Monte, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Fidelity Health Care1.1 miEl Monte, CA★★★☆☆2/5abuse
Temple City Healthcare1.3 miTemple City, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Monrovia Gardens Healthcare Center1.8 miMonrovia, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5
Penn Mar Healthcare Center2.1 miEl Monte, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Madera Post Acute Center2.2 miEl Monte, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5
Baldwin Gardens Nursing Center2.3 miTemple City, CA★★★★☆4/5
Santa Anita Convalescent Hospital2.3 miTemple City, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5SFF
Eastland Subacute and Rehabilitation Center2.4 miEl Monte, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Huntington Drive Health and Rehabilitation Center2.8 miArcadia, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5
Monrovia Post Acute2.9 miDuarte, CA★★★☆☆2/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in El Monte →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555106.