St Andrews

2300 W. Washington Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90018 (opens Google Maps) · Los Angeles County · (323) 731-0861· 59 certified beds · avg 53 residents/day · certified since Feb 21, 1986 · 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: CHARIS TRUST DTD 12/22/16 (6 facilities, chain avg rating 3.3★)

3/5

Health inspection rating (on-site)

inspected Jun 5, 2026

Serious findings on record

Fines, last 3 years

4.89

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: ★★★☆☆3/5 · CMS overall rating: 5/5 · 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 55 inspection findings. Open the full record below to read every finding.

Jun 5, 2026E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern
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
Jun 5, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
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
Jun 5, 2026D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated
The facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. F-0604

View all 55 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 5, 2026	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	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
Jun 5, 2026	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	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
Jun 5, 2026	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility used physical restraints — devices that limit a resident's movement — when they weren't needed for medical treatment. · F-0604
Jun 5, 2026	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	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
Jun 5, 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
Jun 5, 2026	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
Jun 5, 2026	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
Jun 5, 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. · F-0689
Jun 5, 2026	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
Jun 5, 2026	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not provide care that took into account residents' past trauma or their cultural backgrounds. Care is supposed to be sensitive to what residents have lived through and where they come from. · F-0699
Jun 5, 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
Jun 5, 2026	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
Jun 5, 2026	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not provide each resident with a nourishing, tasty, well-balanced diet that meets their daily nutritional and special dietary needs. · F-0800
Jun 5, 2026	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
Jun 5, 2026	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	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
Jul 14, 2025	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. · from a complaint · F-0658
Jul 14, 2025	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. · from a complaint · F-0880
Jun 3, 2025	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand. · from a complaint · F-0552
Apr 18, 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 18, 2025	E · Potential for more than minimal harm, pattern	The facility did not conduct and document a facility-wide assessment of what staff, supplies, and resources it needs to care for its residents properly — during everyday operations, nights, weekends, and emergencies. · F-0838
Apr 18, 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 18, 2025	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not honor residents' right to make their own choices about their daily lives, such as when to wake up, what to eat, or how to spend their time. · F-0561
Apr 18, 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 18, 2025	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. · from a complaint · F-0582
Apr 18, 2025	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not enter each resident's assessment information into the required format and send it to the state within 7 days of completing the assessment, as the rules require. · F-0640
Apr 18, 2025	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
Apr 18, 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
Apr 18, 2025	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
Apr 18, 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 18, 2025	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
Apr 18, 2025	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not provide the social services residents need — such as counseling, help with adjustment, or connecting to outside resources — to achieve the best possible quality of life. · from a complaint · F-0745
Apr 18, 2025	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 18, 2025	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not provide timely, quality laboratory tests to meet residents' needs. · F-0770
Apr 18, 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
Sep 25, 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
Sep 25, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not make sure the resident's doctor reviewed their care and wrote, signed, and dated progress notes and orders at each required visit. · from a complaint · F-0711
Sep 3, 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
Aug 27, 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
Aug 27, 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
Aug 27, 2024	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. · from a complaint · F-0755
May 9, 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. · from a complaint · F-0580
May 9, 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
May 9, 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. · from a complaint · F-0842
Apr 28, 2024	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 28, 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 28, 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 28, 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 28, 2024	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 28, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	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 28, 2024	D · Potential for more than minimal harm, isolated	The facility did not try to gradually reduce doses of mood- and mind-altering medications or use non-drug approaches first, as required, or used 'as needed' psychiatric drugs without proper limits. · F-0758
Apr 28, 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 28, 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
Apr 28, 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 9, 2024	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
Aug 16, 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 stayed about the same across the last two inspection cycles (16 → 15).

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

All citationsSerious citations (G–L)

2023

2024

2025

2026

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

Year	Citations	Worst severity that year
2023	1	E
2024	20	E
2025	19	E
2026	15	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)

4.89

4.31

3.95

Registered Nurse hours

0.67

0.61

0.69

Weekend total nurse staffing

4.28

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)	4.89	4.31	3.95	top 17% in California; top 15% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours	0.67	0.61	0.69	top 26% in California; top 39% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing	4.28	3.90	3.50	top 22% in California; top 16% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)	0.37	0.51	0.48	bottom 49% in California; bottom 46% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)	27.6	36.7	45.8	top 23% in California; top 10% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)	28.6	38.1	42.9	top 33% in California; top 26% 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 4.70, RN 0.65, weekend 4.12.Comparing with Medicare Care Compare? Care Compare shows the raw figure (4.70 here, displayed there as hours and minutes), not the adjusted one above. Both are correct; they answer different questions. Staffing rating: 5/5.

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: 5/5 · long-stay residents: 5/5 · short-stay residents: —/5

Costs & payment

Price evidence · separate from quality

No verified facility-specific private-pay price is available in our data for St Andrews. 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
David, Emmanuel	Individual	Direct Ownership Interest	NOT APPLICABLE	12/22/2016
David, Ofelia	Individual	Direct Ownership Interest	NOT APPLICABLE	12/22/2016
Washington Enterprises III LLC	Organization	Indirect Ownership Interest	NOT APPLICABLE	02/21/1986
David, Emmanuel	Individual	Corporate Director	NOT APPLICABLE	04/01/1999
David, Emmanuel	Individual	Corporate Officer	NOT APPLICABLE	04/01/1999
Hadadz, Ali	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	05/04/2026
Hadadz, Ali	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	05/04/2026
Steve, Denise	Individual	Managing Control - Governing Body	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2021
Steve, Denise	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2021
Villaluz, Christian	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	09/16/2024
Villaluz, Christian	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	11/05/2025
Villaluz, Ramona	Individual	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2021
Villaluz, Ramona	Individual	ADP of the SNF	NOT APPLICABLE	01/01/2021
Washington Enterprises III LLC	Organization	Operational/Managerial Control	NOT APPLICABLE	02/21/1986

All 14 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 Charis Trust DTD 12/22/16 — 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.

Vista Real Post Acute — Beaumont, CA · overall 4/5
Country Manor Healthcare — Lake View Terrace, CA · overall 4/5
Harbor Post Acute Care Center — Torrance, CA · overall 3/5
Heritage Rehabilitation Center — Torrance, CA · overall 2/5
Pacific Palms Healthcare — Long Beach, CA · overall 2/5

Listed by state, then facility name — not a ranking.

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.

"How do you handle residents who need modified food textures, and how do you make those meals appetizing?"
"How do you explain health changes and treatment options to residents and their families?"
"What is your policy on physical restraints, and what alternatives do you try first?"
"What percentage of your residents are on antipsychotic or sedating medications, and how do you work to reduce that?"
"Who completes resident assessments here, and how do you check them for accuracy?"
"Who is on the team that builds each resident's care plan, and how quickly is it in place after admission?"
"Can you tell me what this citation involved and what steps you took to bring care back up to standard?"
"What is your falls rate, and what specific steps do you take to prevent falls and supervise residents at risk?"

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 28% total nursing staff turnover here — who on the care team has been with you longest?"
"The ownership record on file lists 14 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 301 within 20 miles)

Facility	Distance	City	Overall	Inspection	Flags
East Terrace Rehabilitation & Wellness Centre, LP	0.4 mi	Los Angeles, CA	★☆☆☆☆	1/5
St. John of God Retirement	0.5 mi	Los Angeles, CA	★☆☆☆☆	1/5
Sunray Healthcare Center	0.5 mi	Los Angeles, CA		—/5	SFF
The Rehabilitation Center on Pico	0.5 mi	Los Angeles, CA	★★☆☆☆	2/5
Sunnyview Care Center	0.6 mi	Los Angeles, CA	★★★☆☆	3/5
Western Convalescent Hospital	0.8 mi	Los Angeles, CA	★☆☆☆☆	1/5
Alcott Rehabilitation Hospital	1.0 mi	Los Angeles, CA	★★★★★	4/5
Windsor Gardens Convalescent Hospital	1.3 mi	Los Angeles, CA	★☆☆☆☆	1/5
Alden Terrace Convalescent Hospital	1.8 mi	Los Angeles, CA	★★★★★	4/5
Alvarado Care Center	1.8 mi	Los Angeles, CA	★★☆☆☆	2/5
Olympia Convalescent Hospital	1.9 mi	Los Angeles, CA	★★☆☆☆	2/5
California Post Acute	2.0 mi	Los Angeles, CA	★☆☆☆☆	1/5	SFF

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.

Stoney Point Healthcare Center — Chatsworth, CA · overall 3/5
Studebaker Healthcare Center — Norwalk, CA · overall 1/5abuse
Studio City Rehabilitation Center — Studio City, CA · overall 1/5SFF
Sunland Post Acute — Sunland, CA · overall 1/5abuse
Sunny Hills Post Acute — La Mirada, CA · overall 2/5
Sunny Village Care Center — Alhambra, CA · overall 2/5
Sunnyside Nursing Center — Torrance, CA · overall 1/5SFF

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

All facilities in Los Angeles →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 555218.