Santa Fe Lodge

5053 Peck Rd., El Monte, CA 91732 (opens Google Maps) · Los Angeles County · (626) 448-4248· 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)

inspected May 8, 2026

Serious findings on record

most recent Jan 19, 2024

Fines, last 3 years

5.02

Nurse hours/resident/day (adjusted)

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: ★★☆☆☆2/5 · CMS overall rating: 2/5 · 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.

Most serious findings (actual harm or immediate jeopardy)

▲ Immediate jeopardy, pattern · 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): Immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety was cited. The scope was a pattern: more than a limited occurrence, without being widespread. Scope describes the extent of the deficiency, not whether it happened on previous inspections.

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

Inspection findings in the public record

Showing the latest 3 of 50 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

Jun 30, 2026D · 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. · from a complaint F-0656
Jun 30, 2026D · 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
May 8, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. F-0552

View all 50 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
Jun 30, 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. · from a complaint · F-0656
Jun 30, 2026	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
May 8, 2026	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. · F-0552
May 8, 2026	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The 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. · F-0605
May 8, 2026	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not keep the environment free of accident hazards, or did not provide enough supervision to prevent accidents like falls. · F-0689
May 8, 2026	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not provide enough food and fluids to keep residents healthy, such as preventing unplanned weight loss or dehydration. · F-0692
May 8, 2026	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	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 8, 2026	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
May 8, 2026	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The 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. · F-0881
May 8, 2026	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The 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). · F-0628
May 8, 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 8, 2026	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The 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. · F-0805
Apr 7, 2026	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not train its staff on dementia care and on recognizing and reporting abuse, neglect, and exploitation. · from a complaint · F-0943
Apr 7, 2026	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
Feb 5, 2026	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. · from a complaint · F-0684
Mar 20, 2025	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. · F-0552
Mar 20, 2025	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The 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. · F-0578
Mar 20, 2025	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	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
Mar 20, 2025	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
Mar 20, 2025	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The 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. · F-0847
Mar 20, 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
Mar 20, 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
Mar 20, 2025	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
Mar 20, 2025	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The 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. · F-0637
Mar 20, 2025	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The 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. · F-0644
Mar 20, 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
Mar 20, 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
Oct 22, 2024	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
Sep 11, 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. · from a complaint · F-0584
Mar 7, 2024	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	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
Mar 7, 2024	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	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
Mar 7, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The 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. · F-0553
Mar 7, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The 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. · F-0580
Mar 7, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The 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. · F-0582
Mar 7, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The 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. · F-0636
Mar 7, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility provided care that did not meet professional standards of quality — the accepted standards that nurses and other clinicians are expected to follow. · F-0658
Mar 7, 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
Mar 7, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The 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. · F-0688
Mar 7, 2024	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. · F-0689
Mar 7, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The 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. · F-0690
Mar 7, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The 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. · F-0756
Mar 7, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not provide timely, quality laboratory tests to meet residents' needs. · F-0770
Mar 7, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	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
Mar 7, 2024	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
Mar 7, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The 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. · F-0848
Mar 7, 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
Mar 7, 2024	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
Mar 7, 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 19, 2024	▲ K · Immediate jeopardy, pattern	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. · from a complaint · F-0603
Jan 19, 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. · from a complaint · F-0656

Inspection trend by year

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

Citations by recorded inspection yearPublished citation counts, not a quality score · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01

All citationsSerious citations (G–L)

2024

2025

2026

All bars start at zero. Exact values and supporting details remain below.

Year	Citations	Serious (G–L)	Worst severity that year
2024	23	1	K ▲
2025	12	0	E
2026	15	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)

How to file a complaint about care →

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

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

What these staffing numbers mean →

Nurse time, in contextAdjusted hours per resident per day · Source: CMS, 2026-08-01

This facilityCalifornia averageU.S. average

Total nurse staffing (hours per resident per day)

5.02

4.31

3.95

Registered Nurse hours

0.38

0.61

0.69

Weekend total nurse staffing

4.59

3.90

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)	5.02	4.31	3.95	top 14% in California; top 13% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours	0.38	0.61	0.69	bottom 27% in California; bottom 19% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing	4.59	3.90	3.50	top 12% in California; top 11% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)	0.20	0.51	0.48	bottom 11% in California; bottom 13% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)	41.3	36.7	45.8	bottom 34% in California; top 40% in the U.S.
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 4.26, RN 0.32, weekend 3.89.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.26 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 4/5.

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: 3/5 · long-stay residents: 2/5 · 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 Santa Fe Lodge. 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
Friedman Family Trust	Organization	5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest	20%	06/30/2023
Ira D Friedman 1991 Trust	Organization	5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest	20%	06/30/2023
Lehmann Family 1991 Trust	Organization	5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest	20%	06/30/2023
The Klavan Family Trust	Organization	5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest	20%	06/30/2023
The Tzippy Friedman Notis 1990 Trust	Organization	5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest	20%	06/30/2023
Aaron Friedman Group a Business Assets Trust	Organization	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	06/30/2023
Estandarte, Noel	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	06/12/2023
Estandarte, Noel	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	06/12/2023
FLT Acquisitions LLC	Organization	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	06/30/2023
Friedman, Aaron	Individual	Individual Is an Owner, Partner or Trustee of Any ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	10/08/2025
Friedman, Aaron	Individual	Trustee of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	06/30/2023
Friedman, Aaron	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	06/30/2023
Friedman, Ira	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	06/30/2023
Friedman, Ira	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	06/30/2023
Friedman, Ira	Individual	Trustee of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	06/30/2023
Friedman, Ira	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	06/30/2023
Ira David Friedman Group a Business Assets Trust	Organization	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	06/30/2023
Klavan, Joshua	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	12/01/2022
Klavan, Joshua	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	11/16/1986
Klavan, Rachel	Individual	Trustee of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	06/30/2023

Showing 20 of 30 parties CMS has on file for this facility; 10 are not displayed. The full list is in the CMS Ownership dataset.

Other facilities in the same chain

CMS lists this facility under the chain Longwood Management Corporation — 38 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.

Sherman Oaks Health & Rehab — Sherman Oaks, CA · overall 1/5
Sherman Village HCC — North Hollywood, CA · overall 1/5SFF
Studio City Rehabilitation Center — Studio City, CA · overall 1/5SFF
Sunnyview Care Center — Los Angeles, CA · overall 3/5
View Park Convalescent Center — Los Angeles, CA · overall 3/5
West Hills Health and Rehabilitation Center — Canoga Park, CA · overall 1/5
Western Convalescent Hospital — Los Angeles, CA · overall 1/5
Whittier Pacific Care Center — Whittier, CA · overall 2/5

Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking. Showing 8 of the 37 others, continuing from this facility's own place in that list.

Questions to ask on your visit

Full visit checklist →

Print visit checklist

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

"Under what circumstances, if any, would a resident ever be kept in their room or separated from others?"
"Can you show me an example care plan, and how are families included when it's created and updated?"
"What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
"How do you explain health changes and treatment options to residents and their families?"
"What percentage of your residents are on antipsychotic or sedating medications, and how do you work to reduce that?"
"How do you monitor residents' weight and eating, and what happens when someone starts losing weight?"
"How often is each resident's medication list reviewed, and who decides when a drug can be reduced or stopped?"
"What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"

Also worth asking anywhere

"What is your current ratio of nursing staff to residents on day, evening, and weekend shifts?"
"Can I see the plan of correction for the findings in your most recent state inspection?"
"CMS reports 41% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
"The ownership record on file lists 30 owning or managing parties — who makes the decisions about staffing levels?"
"Can I visit again unannounced, at a mealtime or on a weekend?"

Nearby facilities (12 closest of 240 within 20 miles)

Facility	Distance	City	Overall	Inspection	Flags
Mayflower Care Center	0.0 mi	El Monte, CA	★★★☆☆	3/5
The Gardens of el Monte	0.9 mi	El Monte, CA	★★☆☆☆	2/5
Fidelity Health Care	1.1 mi	El Monte, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5	abuse
Temple City Healthcare	1.3 mi	Temple City, CA	★★☆☆☆	2/5
Monrovia Gardens Healthcare Center	1.8 mi	Monrovia, CA	★☆☆☆☆	1/5
Penn Mar Healthcare Center	2.1 mi	El Monte, CA	★★☆☆☆	2/5
Madera Post Acute Center	2.2 mi	El Monte, CA	★☆☆☆☆	1/5
Baldwin Gardens Nursing Center	2.3 mi	Temple City, CA	★★★★☆	4/5
Santa Anita Convalescent Hospital	2.3 mi	Temple City, CA	★☆☆☆☆	1/5	SFF
Eastland Subacute and Rehabilitation Center	2.4 mi	El Monte, CA	★★☆☆☆	2/5
Huntington Drive Health and Rehabilitation Center	2.8 mi	Arcadia, CA	★☆☆☆☆	1/5
Monrovia Post Acute	2.9 mi	Duarte, CA	★★★☆☆	2/5

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.

Santa Monica Health Care Center — Santa Monica, CA · overall 3/5
Santa Monica Rehabilitation Center — Santa Monica, CA · overall 1/5abuseSFF
Seacrest Post-Acute Care Center — San Pedro, CA · overall 1/5abuse
Sharon Care Center — Los Angeles, CA · overall 2/5
Sherman Oaks Health & Rehab — Sherman Oaks, CA · overall 1/5
Sherman Oaks Hospital SNF DP — Sherman Oaks, CA · overall 3/5
Sherman Village HCC — North Hollywood, CA · overall 1/5SFF
Shoreline Healthcare Center — Long Beach, CA · overall 3/5

Listed by facility name — not a ranking. Homes already in the table above are not repeated here.

All facilities in El Monte →

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