California ›Temple City

Temple City Healthcare

5101 Tyler Avenue, Temple City, CA 91780 · Los Angeles County · 59 certified beds · avg 52 residents/day · certified since Sep 27, 1973

2/5
Health inspection rating (on-site)
0
Serious findings on record
$0
Fines, last 3 years
4.50
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.

All citations in the current public record (52)

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
Apr 17, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment, including safe support for residents' daily living needs.
Apr 17, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe 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.
Apr 17, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have enough nursing staff each day to meet every resident's needs, or did not have a licensed nurse in charge on each shift. Adequate staffing is one of the strongest predictors of good care.
Apr 17, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident.
Apr 17, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not protect residents' personal information or did not keep complete, accurate medical records that meet professional standards.
Apr 17, 2026E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not have a written plan describing how it runs its quality improvement program — the ongoing process of finding problems in care and fixing them.
Apr 17, 2026E · 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.
Apr 17, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure residents were fully informed about their own health, care, and treatments in a way they could understand.
Apr 17, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not allow residents to take their own medications when a clinical review showed they could do so safely. Residents have this right if their care team determines it's appropriate.
Apr 17, 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.
Apr 17, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Apr 17, 2026D · 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.
Apr 17, 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.
Apr 17, 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.
Apr 17, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Apr 17, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide basic life support, such as CPR, before emergency medical help arrived — care that's required when it matches the doctor's orders and the resident's own written wishes.
Apr 17, 2026D · 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.
Apr 17, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Apr 17, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide pharmacy services that meet each resident's needs, or did not employ or contract with a licensed pharmacist.
Apr 17, 2026D · 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.
Apr 17, 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 17, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not make sure special medical diets — like low-sodium or diabetic diets — were properly ordered by the resident's doctor or managed by a qualified dietitian as state law allows.
Apr 17, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not provide or arrange specialized rehabilitation services — such as physical, occupational, or speech therapy — for residents who needed them.
Feb 6, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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. · from a complaint
Feb 6, 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
Jan 13, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not honor a resident's right to choose their own attending doctor. Residents get to decide which physician oversees their care. · from a complaint
Jan 13, 2026D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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
Dec 26, 2025D · 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
Nov 13, 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. · from a complaint
Aug 15, 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. · from a complaint
Aug 15, 2025D · 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 16, 2025E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not make sure its nurses and nurse aides had the skills and training needed to properly care for every resident.
Mar 16, 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 16, 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 16, 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 16, 2025D · 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. · from a complaint
Mar 16, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not give the resident or their representative written notice of how long it would hold the resident's bed during a hospital stay or approved leave.
Mar 16, 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 16, 2025D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Mar 16, 2025D · 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.
Mar 16, 2025D · 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 16, 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.
Mar 17, 2024E · 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 17, 2024E · Potential for harm, repeatedThe facility did not give the resident or their representative written notice of how long it would hold the resident's bed during a hospital stay or approved leave.
Mar 17, 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 17, 2024E · 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 17, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not develop and follow policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft. These written safeguards are the foundation of resident protection.
Mar 17, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe facility did not give residents (and their representatives and the ombudsman, a state advocate for residents) proper advance notice before a transfer or discharge, including information about their right to appeal.
Mar 17, 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.
Mar 17, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Mar 17, 2024D · Potential for harm, one-offThe 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.
Mar 17, 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.

Inspection trend by year

Citations from standard inspections increased between the last two inspection cycles (11 → 23).

YearCitationsSerious (G–L)Worst severity that year
2024100E
2025150E
2026270E

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)4.504.313.95top 29% in California; top 23% in the U.S.
Registered Nurse hours0.600.610.69top 33% in California; top 48% in the U.S.
Weekend total nurse staffing3.953.903.50top 36% in California; top 24% in the U.S.
Weekend RN hours (not acuity-adjusted)0.380.510.48top 48% in California; bottom 49% in the U.S.
Total nursing staff turnover (%)33.836.745.8top 42% in California; top 21% in the U.S.
RN turnover (%)50.038.142.9bottom 29% in California; bottom 39% 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 4.85, RN 0.65, weekend 4.25. 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: 4/5

Who owns this facility

For profit - Limited Liability company

Owner / managerTypeRoleStakeSince
Karp, BenjaminIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest—06/30/2023
Karp, MatthewIndividual5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest—06/30/2023
Mayer 2012 TrustOrganization5% or Greater Direct Ownership Interest—12/15/2012
5101 Tyler Avenue LLCOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE11/23/2011
Bastomski Living Trust Dated April 18, 1997OrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE11/23/2011
Caravan Operations CorpOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE09/20/2012
Figueroa, JoannIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE10/18/2019
Figueroa, JoannIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE10/18/2019
Karp, BenjaminIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE06/30/2023
Karp, BenjaminIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE10/18/2019
Karp, MatthewIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE10/18/2019
Karp, MatthewIndividualIndividual Is an Owner, Partner or Trustee of Any ADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE04/01/2026
Karp, MatthewIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE10/18/2019
Liu, JohnIndividualOperational/Managerial ControlNOT APPLICABLE03/01/2024
Liu, JohnIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE03/01/2024
Mayer 2005 Revocable TrustOrganizationADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE11/23/2011
Mayer, HeleneIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE11/23/2011
Mayer, RonaldIndividualADP of the SNFNOT APPLICABLE11/23/2011

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
Fidelity Health Care0.7 miEl Monte, CA★★★☆☆2/5abuse
Santa Anita Convalescent Hospital1.2 miTemple City, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5SFF
The Gardens of el Monte1.2 miEl Monte, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Baldwin Gardens Nursing Center1.2 miTemple City, CA★★★★☆4/5
Santa Fe Lodge1.3 miEl Monte, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Mayflower Care Center1.3 miEl Monte, CA★★★☆☆3/5
Madera Post Acute Center1.7 miEl Monte, CA★☆☆☆☆1/5
Penn Mar Healthcare Center2.0 miEl Monte, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Rosemead Healthcare Center2.0 miEl Monte, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Eastland Subacute and Rehabilitation Center2.2 miEl Monte, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Arcadia Care Center2.4 miArcadia, CA★★☆☆☆2/5
Valley View Post Acute2.4 miEl Monte, CA★★★☆☆2/5

Compare this facility with the 3 closest →

All facilities in Temple City →

Facility data as of CMS processing date 2026-08-01. CCN 056413.