How to file a complaint about care →
No fines or payment denials in the published 3-year window.
Sherman Oaks Hospital SNF DP
4929 Van Nuys Blvd, Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 (opens Google Maps) · Los Angeles County · (818) 907-4540· 22 certified beds · avg 19 residents/day · certified since May 28, 2014 · 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: PRIME HEALTHCARE (6 facilities, chain avg rating 3.5★)
3/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
inspected Apr 13, 2025
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
3.85
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: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 3/5 · 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 33 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.
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
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
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
View all 33 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 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 13, 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 13, 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 |
| Apr 13, 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 |
| Apr 13, 2025 | 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 |
| Apr 13, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0686 |
| Apr 13, 2025 | 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 |
| Apr 13, 2025 | 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 |
| Apr 13, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not safely and appropriately administer IV fluids (fluids given through a vein) for residents who needed them. · F-0694 |
| Apr 13, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 13, 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 13, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 |
| Apr 13, 2025 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not designate a qualified infection preventionist — a trained person responsible for running the infection prevention and control program. · F-0882 |
| Apr 18, 2024 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility did not have a proper governing body legally responsible for its policies and operations, or that body failed to appoint a properly licensed administrator to manage the facility. · F-0837 |
| Apr 18, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Apr 18, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | 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 |
| Apr 18, 2024 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not keep residents free from significant medication errors — such as giving the wrong drug, the wrong dose, or missing a critical medication. · F-0760 |
| Apr 18, 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 18, 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. · F-0880 |
| Apr 18, 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 18, 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 |
| Apr 18, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not safely and appropriately administer IV fluids (fluids given through a vein) for residents who needed them. · F-0694 |
| Apr 18, 2024 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0761 |
| Apr 18, 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 2, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. · F-0604 |
| Apr 2, 2023 | F · Potential for more than minimal harm, widespread | The facility used bed rails without first trying safer alternatives, or without assessing the resident's safety risk, discussing the risks and benefits with the resident or family, getting consent, and installing the rails correctly. · F-0700 |
| Apr 2, 2023 | E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern | The facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident. · F-0726 |
| Apr 2, 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. · F-0880 |
| Apr 2, 2023 | 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 2, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not keep residents' personal and medical information private and confidential. · F-0583 |
| Apr 2, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The facility did not post its nurse staffing information every day. Nursing homes must publicly display how many nurses and aides are on duty each day. · F-0732 |
| Apr 2, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | 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 2, 2023 | D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated | The 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. · F-0761 |
Inspection trend by year
Citations from standard inspections stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (11 → 13).
All citationsSerious citations (G–L)
2023
All citations: 9
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2024
All citations: 11
Serious citations (G–L): 0
2025
All citations: 13
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 | 9 | 0 | F |
| 2024 | 11 | 0 | F |
| 2025 | 13 | 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: 3.85
California average: 4.31
U.S. average: 3.95
Registered Nurse hours
This facility: 1.13
California average: 0.61
U.S. average: 0.69
Weekend total nurse staffing
This facility: 3.48
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) | 3.85 | 4.31 | 3.95 | bottom 30% in California; top 46% in the U.S. |
| Registered Nurse hours | 1.13 | 0.61 | 0.69 | top 8% in California; top 11% in the U.S. |
| Weekend total nurse staffing | 3.48 | 3.90 | 3.50 | bottom 29% in California; top 43% in the U.S. |
| Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted) | 2.13 | 0.51 | 0.48 | top 2% in California; top 1% in the U.S. |
| Total nursing staff turnover (%) | 4.5 | 36.7 | 45.8 | top 1% in California; top 1% in the U.S. |
| RN turnover (%) | 6.7 | 38.1 | 42.9 | top 4% in California; top 3% in the U.S. |
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 8.71, RN 2.56, weekend 7.88.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (8.71 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: 4/5 · long-stay residents: 4/5 · short-stay residents: —/5
Costs & payment
Price evidence · separate from quality
No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for Sherman Oaks Hospital SNF DP. 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 - Corporation
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Stake | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prime Healthcare Foundation INC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | — | 01/01/2012 |
| Prime Healthcare Services - Sherman Oaks, LLC | Organization | 5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest | — | 12/03/2004 |
| Aleman, Steven | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 06/01/2020 |
| Bhatia, Sundeep | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2013 |
| Bhatia, Sundeep | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2013 |
| Bhatia, Sundeep | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2013 |
| Doan, Christopher | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 04/05/2023 |
| Doan, Christopher | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/10/2025 |
| Garcia, Em | Individual | Corporate Director | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2013 |
| Garcia, Em | Individual | Corporate Officer | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2013 |
| Garcia, Em | Individual | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2013 |
| Garcia, Em | Individual | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 01/01/2013 |
| Prime Healthcare Services - Sherman Oaks, LLC | Organization | Operational/Managerial Control | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/03/2004 |
| Prime Healthcare Services - Sherman Oaks, LLC | Organization | Trustee of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/03/2004 |
| Prime Healthcare Services - Sherman Oaks, LLC | Organization | ADP of the SNF | NOT APPLICABLE | 12/03/2004 |
All 15 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 Prime Healthcare — 6 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.
- West Anaheim Medical Center D/P SNF — Anaheim, CA · overall 5/5
- Avantara Joliet — Joliet, IL · overall 2/5
- Harmony Park Ridge — Park Ridge, IL · overall 1/5abuse
- Dwelling Place at St Clares — Dover, NJ · overall 5/5
- Encino Hospital Medical Center D/P SNF — Encino, CA · overall 5/5
Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking.
Questions to ask on your visit
Generated from this facility's actual citation record — bring them to a tour and ask the administrator directly.
- "How does your pharmacist review residents' medications, and how quickly can you fill new or urgent prescriptions?"
- "What is your current medication error rate, and what have you changed to bring errors down?"
- "What did your most recent kitchen inspection find, and can I see how food is stored and prepared?"
- "Can you give me examples of how you adjust daily routines and room setups to fit each resident's preferences?"
- "If my family member falls or their condition changes, exactly when and how will I be notified?"
- "How do you prevent bedsores for residents who can't move themselves, and how often are at-risk residents repositioned?"
- "What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"
- "How do you care for residents with incontinence or catheters, and what do you do to prevent urinary tract infections?"
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?"
- "CMS reports 5% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
- "The ownership record on file lists 15 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 206 within 20 miles)
| Facility | Distance | City | Overall | Inspection | Flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sherman Oaks Health & Rehab | 0.0 mi | Sherman Oaks, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Sherman Village HCC | 2.3 mi | North Hollywood, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | SFF |
| Encino Hospital Medical Center D/P SNF | 2.3 mi | Encino, CA | ★★★★★ | 5/5 | |
| Berkley Post-Acute | 2.4 mi | Van Nuys, CA | ★★★☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| The Care Center on Hazeltine, LLC | 2.5 mi | Van Nuys, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 | |
| California Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center | 2.5 mi | Van Nuys, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Valley Village Care Center | 2.5 mi | North Hollywood, CA | ★★☆☆☆ | 2/5 | |
| Four Seasons Healthcare & Wellness Center, LP | 2.9 mi | North Hollywood, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | abuseSFF |
| Grand Valley Health Care Center | 3.1 mi | Van Nuys, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Valley Palms Care Center | 3.3 mi | N Hollywood, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Terrace Post Acute | 3.4 mi | Van Nuys, CA | ★☆☆☆☆ | 1/5 | |
| Lake Balboa Care Center | 3.7 mi | Van Nuys, CA | ★★★★☆ | 3/5 |
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.
- Shoreline Healthcare Center — Long Beach, CA · overall 3/5
- Sierra View Care Center — Baldwin Park, CA · overall 4/5
- Skyline Healthcare Center - la — Los Angeles, CA · overall 1/5SFF
- Socal Post-Acute Care — Whittier, CA · overall 3/5
- Solheim Senior Community — Los Angeles, CA · overall 2/5
- South Pasadena Care Center — South Pasadena, CA · overall 1/5
- Southern California Hosp at Culver City D/P SNF — Culver City, CA · overall 2/5
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 555885.
This page is the printable visit checklist. If your browser did not open the print dialog automatically, use File → Print (Ctrl/⌘-P).