Not rated by CMS — ratings are suppressed for new or low-volume facilities.
The next survey window likely opens around December 2026
Estimate from public CMS data, current as of June 2026. Survey timing is at the state agency's discretion.
Citation history
Health deficiencies cited at Alamitos Belmont Health And Rehabilitation during CMS and state inspections, most recent first.
A resident with complex medical needs and dependence on staff for daily care was scheduled for discharge to an assisted living facility without proper verification that the facility could meet their needs or confirmation of the discharge destination. The receiving facility was not expecting the resident, was not equipped to provide the required care, and confusion existed regarding the resident's identity and admission, resulting in the discharge being delayed.
A resident who required assistance with hygiene and was able to make their own decisions was discharged to a board and care facility without being informed that their insurance would not cover the cost. The resident was told by social service staff that insurance would pay, but upon arrival learned their social security check would be used, resulting in unexpected financial obligations and psychosocial distress.
The facility failed to provide consistent 3-ounce portions of meatloaf to 46 residents on regular diets, as specified in the menu. Observations revealed varying portion sizes, with some as low as 2.5 ounces. Staff initially misjudged the portion size, leading to adjustments based on resident complaints. The Dietary Supervisor and Registered Dietitian stressed the importance of following the menu for adequate nutrition.
The facility failed to prepare food that conserved flavor and appearance, as observed in bland buttered carrots and mashed potatoes. Multiple residents, including those with chronic conditions and specific dietary needs, reported dissatisfaction with the food. The Dietary Supervisor confirmed the lack of flavor, indicating a possible deviation from standardized recipes.
The facility failed to prepare puree diets correctly for residents with dysphagia, as observed with the puree meatloaf and carrots not meeting the required consistency. The puree meatloaf could not hold its shape, and the puree carrots were watery, which did not align with the diet manual's standards. This deficiency was confirmed by the dietary supervisor and registered dietitian, who noted the potential risk of aspiration for residents with difficulty swallowing.
The facility failed to ensure safe food storage and preparation, with issues such as improper labeling, dented cans, and unsanitary kitchen equipment. Staff did not perform hand hygiene, and food temperatures were not checked, leading to potential foodborne illnesses among residents.
The facility failed to properly dispose of garbage, with two dumpsters found overflowing and unable to close, as observed by the Dietary Supervisor and Environmental Services Director. This improper disposal could attract pests and rodents, posing a health risk to residents. The facility's policies and the Food Code 2022 emphasize proper disposal to prevent contamination, which was not followed.
A facility failed to ensure staff wore appropriate PPE while caring for a resident on enhanced barrier precautions due to a G-Tube. A CNA was observed without a gown, only wearing gloves, and did not perform hand hygiene after care. The resident had multiple diagnoses and required PPE for high-contact activities. Staff interviews and facility policies confirmed the need for PPE to prevent infection spread.
A resident with Parkinson's Disease and prostate cancer experienced decreased ROM in both ankles, but the facility failed to notify nursing staff and a physician in a timely manner. An RNA noticed increased stiffness in the resident's ankle in mid-October but only informed a physical therapist who no longer worked there, neglecting to report to nursing staff. This delay in communication postponed necessary evaluations and interventions.
A facility failed to follow up on a Level 2 PASRR evaluation for a resident with depression, Parkinson's Disease, and prostate cancer. Despite a positive Level 1 screening indicating the need for further evaluation, the facility did not respond to attempts to complete the Level 2 assessment. The DON was unaware of the communication attempts, leading to a closed case and potential delay in services.
A resident with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease did not receive insulin as ordered by the physician. The resident's MAR showed that Insulin Glargine was administered when blood sugar levels were below the physician-ordered threshold of 150 mg/dL. The DON confirmed that this practice was against the physician's parameters, posing a risk for hypoglycemia, and emphasized the importance of following physician orders.
A resident with chronic pain conditions was inadequately assessed and monitored for pain management in an LTC facility. Despite being prescribed multiple pain medications, the resident's pain was not effectively managed, with inconsistencies in pain assessment and documentation. The MAR showed a lack of reevaluation after medication administration, and the resident reported severe pain that was not addressed timely. Staff interviews confirmed the deficiency in pain management practices.
A resident with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease received Insulin Glargine despite physician orders to hold it if blood sugar was below 150 mg/dL. The insulin was administered multiple times when the resident's blood sugar was below this threshold, posing a risk for hypoglycemia. The DON confirmed the error, noting the importance of adhering to physician orders to prevent adverse effects.
A resident with a history of falling and weakness did not receive timely Restorative Nursing Aide (RNA) services after their discharge plan changed. Despite the resident's care plan aiming to improve their ADL function, RNA services were delayed until 2/19/2024, putting the resident at risk for a decline in range of motion and strength.
Failure to Ensure Safe and Appropriate Discharge Planning
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure safe and appropriate discharge planning for a resident by arranging a transfer to an assisted living facility without verifying that the receiving facility could meet the resident's needs and without confirming the accuracy of the discharge destination. The resident had complex medical conditions, including end-stage chronic kidney disease requiring dialysis, diabetes mellitus, dementia with fluctuating decision-making capacity, anxiety, and multiple healing fractures. The resident was dependent on nursing staff for activities of daily living such as toileting, showering, dressing, and transferring. Despite these needs, the facility initiated discharge orders to an assisted living facility without confirming the facility's ability to provide the necessary care or even verifying the correct facility name and location. Interviews and record reviews revealed that the receiving facility was not expecting the resident, was located in a different city, and typically only accepted independent, ambulatory residents without dementia. The Social Services Director was unable to locate the intended facility online and, upon contacting the administrator of the facility, discovered confusion regarding the resident's identity and admission. The discharge was ultimately delayed after it was determined that the transfer would not be safe or appropriate, and the discharge order was discontinued.
Failure to Inform Resident of Financial Obligations Prior to Discharge
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to inform a resident that their insurance would not cover the cost of a board and care facility prior to discharge. The resident, who was admitted with diagnoses including hypertension and repeated falls and required supervision or assistance with hygiene, was able to make their own decisions. Prior to discharge, the resident specifically asked the social service staff if their insurance would pay for the board and care facility, and was incorrectly told that it would. Upon arrival at the new facility, the resident learned that their social security check would be used to pay for their stay, resulting in a share of cost that the resident was not prepared for. The Social Service Director acknowledged that she did not explain the financial obligations to the resident before discharge and recognized that the resident had the right to be informed. The Director of Nursing confirmed that residents should be informed in writing about payment expectations before discharge or transfer. The resident reported experiencing stress and anxiety due to the unexpected financial burden and stated that they would have preferred to be informed beforehand to make an informed decision. The facility's policy requires that appropriate information be communicated to the receiving provider, but this was not followed in this case.
Inconsistent Portion Sizes Lead to Nutritional Deficiency
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to adhere to the prescribed menu and portion sizes, which resulted in 46 out of 81 residents on regular texture diets receiving incorrect portions of meatloaf. The menu specified a 3-ounce portion of meatloaf, but during an observation, it was found that the portions varied, with some pieces weighing as little as 2.5 ounces. This discrepancy was confirmed by a staff member who initially believed the portion size to be 2 ounces and adjusted the portions due to resident complaints about small sizes. However, upon checking the menu spreadsheet, the staff member acknowledged the correct portion size was indeed 3 ounces. Interviews with the Dietary Supervisor and Registered Dietitian highlighted the importance of following the menu spreadsheet to ensure residents receive adequate nutrition. The facility's standardized recipe and policies also emphasized the need for accurate portion control using appropriate equipment. The failure to provide consistent portion sizes had the potential to result in decreased nutrient intake and unintended weight loss among residents.
Deficiency in Food Preparation and Flavor
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to prepare food by methods that conserved flavor and appearance, as observed during a survey. Specifically, the buttered carrots lacked butter flavor, and the mashed potatoes were bland and tasteless. This deficiency was identified through observations, interviews, and record reviews, indicating that the facility did not adhere to its policy of ensuring food is palatable and attractive. The Dietary Supervisor and Registered Dietitian confirmed during a test tray evaluation that the food did not meet flavor expectations, suggesting that the cook may not have followed the standardized recipes. The deficiency affected multiple residents, including those with specific dietary needs and medical conditions. Resident 42, who has chronic kidney disease, COPD, and protein-calorie malnutrition, reported that the food was bland. Resident 82, diagnosed with dysphagia and protein-calorie malnutrition, described the food as horrible. Resident 78, with chronic systolic heart failure and acute respiratory failure, stated the food was like poison, and Resident 27, with dysphagia and hypertension, also found the food unsatisfactory. These residents required various levels of assistance with eating and had specific dietary orders, such as no added salt and different texture modifications. The facility's policies and procedures for food preparation, dated July 19, 2024, required that food be prepared to conserve nutritive value, flavor, and appearance, using approved and standardized recipes. However, the facility's failure to adhere to these procedures resulted in poorly prepared food being served to residents. The standardized recipes for buttered carrots and mashed potatoes included specific ingredients and preparation methods, but the lack of flavor in the served food indicated a deviation from these guidelines. The Dietary Supervisor acknowledged that residents might not eat the food if it was not flavorful, which could lead to dissatisfaction and potential nutritional issues.
Failure to Prepare Puree Diets Correctly
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to prepare foods in a form designed to meet individual needs for residents on a puree level 4 diet. During an observation, it was noted that the puree meatloaf could not hold its shape, and the puree carrots were watery, which did not meet the required consistency for a puree diet. The dietary supervisor and registered dietitian confirmed that the puree meatloaf was spread out on the plate and the puree carrots had liquid seeping from them, which is inconsistent with the diet manual's definition of a puree diet. The puree diet is intended for residents with dysphagia and those without teeth, and it requires the food to be lump-free, not firm or sticky, and to hold its shape on the plate without liquids separating from the food. The facility's diet manual and recipes for puree foods, such as meatloaf and buttered carrots, were reviewed. The manual specifies that the puree diet should be prepared to a pudding-like consistency, with no lumps or liquid separation, to prevent aspiration and ensure the food is easily swallowed. However, the puree meatloaf and carrots did not meet these standards, as observed during the test tray evaluation. The registered dietitian highlighted the potential risk of aspiration for residents with difficulty swallowing if the food is not prepared correctly. The facility's recipes for puree foods were also reviewed, indicating specific instructions for achieving the correct texture, but these were not followed, leading to the deficiency.
Deficiencies in Food Safety and Sanitation Practices
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure safe and sanitary food storage and preparation practices, as observed during a survey. Staff did not properly label food products, including Jello and dry potatoes, and failed to label residents' food from outside with the resident's name. This lack of labeling could lead to cross-contamination and incorrect diets being served to residents. Additionally, three dented cans were stored with non-dented cans, posing a risk of botulism, and various kitchen utensils and equipment were found to be chipped, cracked, or rusted, which could result in physical contamination of food. The kitchen equipment and food preparation surfaces were not adequately cleaned and sanitized. Observations revealed that the clean area for storing pots and pans had crumbs and food particles, pans had food residue, and the toaster and microwave had food splatter and residue. The tray-line top was rusted and dirty, and the resident's freezer temperature was not monitored, which could lead to food spoilage. Furthermore, staff did not perform hand hygiene appropriately, as they were observed touching garbage covers and picking up items from the floor without washing their hands before handling food. Food temperatures were not checked prior to tray-line service, and the mashed potatoes in the steamtable were found to be at 125 degrees Fahrenheit, below the required holding temperature of 140 degrees Fahrenheit. This failure to monitor and maintain proper food temperatures could result in serving undercooked or cold food to residents. The facility's policies and procedures were not followed, as evidenced by the lack of temperature logs and the improper handling and storage of food items, which could lead to foodborne illnesses among the residents.
Improper Garbage Disposal Leads to Potential Health Risks
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to properly dispose of garbage and refuse, as observed on 11/12/2024, when two dumpsters were found overflowing with trash, preventing the lids from closing. This was confirmed during an observation and interview with the Dietary Supervisor, who acknowledged that staff disposed of all food trash in these dumpsters. The overflowing trash and open lids were identified as a potential attractant for pests and rodents, which could carry diseases and pose a risk to the residents. Further observation and interview with the Environmental Services Director revealed that the trash vendor typically collected the trash once a day, but was delayed due to a holiday. The Environmental Services Director confirmed that the overflowing dumpsters and inability to close the lids were not acceptable, as they could attract flies and create an unpleasant environment. The facility's Policies and Procedures, as well as the Food Code 2022, emphasize the importance of proper garbage disposal to prevent nuisances and potential contamination, which were not adhered to in this instance.
Failure to Use PPE for Resident on Enhanced Barrier Precautions
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that staff wore appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) while providing direct care to a resident on enhanced barrier precautions (EBP). During an observation, a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) was seen tending to a resident's care without wearing the required PPE, specifically a gown, while only wearing gloves. The CNA adjusted the resident's blanket and then left the room without performing hand hygiene, despite signage indicating the need for PPE due to the resident's EBP status. The resident in question was admitted with multiple diagnoses, including metabolic encephalopathy, a gastrostomy tube (G-Tube), type 2 diabetes mellitus, and hypertension. The resident was assessed as moderately impaired in cognitive skills and dependent on assistance for mobility and self-care. The facility's order summary report indicated that enhanced barrier precautions were necessary for the resident due to the presence of a G-Tube, requiring PPE for high-contact care activities. Interviews with facility staff, including a Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) and the Director of Nursing (DON), confirmed the requirement for PPE to prevent the spread of infections. The facility's policy on infection prevention and control outlined the need for gown and gloves during high-contact activities, especially for residents with medical devices like G-Tubes. The failure to adhere to these guidelines posed a risk of infection transmission within the facility.
Failure to Notify Staff of Resident's Decreased Ankle Mobility
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure timely notification of nursing staff and a physician when a resident exhibited decreased range of motion (ROM) in both ankles. This deficiency was identified through observation, interviews, and record reviews. The resident, who was admitted with diagnoses including depression, Parkinson's Disease, and prostate cancer, initially had no ROM limitations according to assessments conducted in August. However, by November, a Joint Mobility Assessment revealed minimum ROM limitations in the resident's bilateral ankles. The resident's care plan, which was updated in November, included interventions for the newly identified bilateral ankle limitations, but there was a delay in notifying the appropriate medical personnel. A Restorative Nursing Assistant (RNA) noticed increased stiffness in the resident's right ankle in mid-October but only informed a physical therapist who no longer worked at the facility. The RNA did not report the change to nursing staff, which was against the facility's policy requiring immediate notification of any change in a resident's condition. Interviews with the Director of Rehab and the Director of Staff Development confirmed that the RNA should have reported the decline in ROM to both rehab and nursing staff immediately. The facility's policy and job descriptions clearly state the responsibility of RNAs to report changes in residents' conditions to ensure timely evaluation and intervention. The delay in communication resulted in a postponement of necessary evaluations and interventions for the resident's condition.
Failure to Follow Up on Level 2 PASRR Evaluation
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to follow up on a Level 2 Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) evaluation for a resident diagnosed with depression, Parkinson's Disease, and prostate cancer. The resident was admitted with a positive PASRR Level 1 screening indicating the need for a Level 2 evaluation due to a serious mental illness. However, the facility did not respond to multiple attempts to complete the Level 2 evaluation, resulting in the case being closed without the necessary assessment. The Director of Nursing (DON) was unaware of the attempts to contact the facility for the evaluation until the review. The Notice of Attempted Evaluation letter was uploaded into the electronic medical record, but the DON was not informed, leading to a failure to complete a new Level 1 screening to reopen the case. This oversight had the potential to delay services for the resident, as the Level 2 PASRR is crucial for ensuring all resident needs are met.
Failure to Administer Insulin According to Physician's Orders
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease received her insulin as ordered by the physician. The resident's care plan included interventions for diabetes management, specifically receiving diabetes medications as prescribed. However, a review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for October and November 2024 revealed that Insulin Glargine was administered on multiple occasions when the resident's blood sugar levels were below the physician-ordered threshold of 150 mg/dL. This administration occurred despite the physician's explicit instructions to hold the insulin if the blood sugar was below this level. During an interview, the Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged that the insulin was given contrary to the physician's parameters, which posed a risk for hypoglycemia. The DON emphasized the importance of adhering to physician orders to prevent adverse effects, particularly since insulin is a high-risk medication. The facility's policy required nurses to administer medication according to the written orders of the attending physician, which was not followed in this case, leading to the deficiency.
Inadequate Pain Management Assessment and Monitoring
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to accurately assess and monitor the effectiveness of pain management for a resident, leading to a deficiency in care. The resident, who was admitted with diagnoses including depression, Parkinson's Disease, and prostate cancer, was prescribed various pain medications such as Percocet, Tylenol, Cyclobenzaprine, and Gabapentin. Despite these prescriptions, the resident's care plan indicated that the pain was not relieved by the current medications, and the resident frequently reported experiencing severe pain. The Medication Administration Record (MAR) for the resident showed inconsistencies in pain assessment and documentation. The MAR indicated that the effectiveness of Tylenol was often marked as unknown, and the resident's pain level was consistently documented as 0, despite the resident reporting significant pain. Additionally, there was no record of reevaluation for pain after administering Percocet, and the pain characteristics were not monitored as required by the care plan. Interviews with the resident and staff revealed that the resident frequently experienced severe pain and felt that the facility was not adequately addressing his pain management needs. The Director of Staff Development acknowledged that the nurses were not documenting a full pain assessment, and there was a lack of reevaluation of pain after medication administration. The facility's policy required documentation of the response to pain medication and contacting the physician if the pain management program was ineffective, which was not consistently followed in this case.
Failure to Follow Insulin Administration Parameters
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to ensure that a resident was free from significant medication errors by not adhering to the physician's ordered parameters for insulin administration. The resident, who was admitted with diagnoses of type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease, had specific orders for Insulin Glargine to be held if blood sugar levels were below 150 mg/dL. However, the medication was administered on multiple occasions when the resident's blood sugar levels were below this threshold, as documented in the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for October and November 2024. The Director of Nursing (DON) acknowledged that the insulin was given contrary to the physician's orders, which posed a risk for hypoglycemia and other adverse effects. The facility's policy required nurses to administer medication according to the physician's written orders, emphasizing the importance of following these parameters to prevent potential harm. Despite this policy, the insulin was administered incorrectly, highlighting a significant medication error in the care of the resident.
Failure to Provide Timely Restorative Nursing Aide Program
Penalty
Summary
The facility failed to provide a Restorative Nursing Aide (RNA) program to a resident who was not discharged home as initially planned and continued to stay in the facility. The resident, who had a history of falling and weakness, was admitted with intact cognition and required partial to moderate assistance for activities of daily living (ADLs). Despite the resident's care plan indicating a goal to increase their level of function in ADLs, RNA services were not initiated until 2/19/2024, even though the resident remained in the facility from 2/6/2024 to 3/6/2024. The delay in providing RNA services was due to the initial discharge plan, which recommended home health services and did not indicate the need for restorative programs. However, the resident's physician requested RNA services on 2/17/2024, and the services were started on 2/19/2024. Interviews with the Director of Rehabilitation and the Director of Nursing confirmed that the lack of RNA services could affect the resident's range of motion and strength. The facility's policy indicated that residents should be assessed for physical/occupational therapy or maintenance ROM programs to achieve or maintain their level of self-care or mobility.
What surveyors are citing around you — mapped
All 10 risk areas, ranked with evidence
Repeat citations, what's rising near you, and quality measures — ranked so department heads know exactly where to look first.
Illustrative
What surveyors actually found near you
We read the 4,084 citations issued within 25 miles in the last 12 months — including the 15 immediate-jeopardy cases — and tell you exactly what happened, in plain English, matched to your record.
Resident with a documented fall history left unattended on the patio; found on the ground with a hip fracture.
Walk-in cooler logs missing for 12 days; expired supplements in the medication room fridge.
Illustrative
A prioritized, do-first checklist
Every risk area becomes concrete audit steps drawn from real citations at facilities like yours — run them this week, before your window opens.
Illustrative
Risk indicators are statistical estimates from public CMS data — not predictions, findings, or compliance advice.
Nursing homes near Long Beach
How nearby facilities compare on the same public inspection record.
| Facility | Distance | Overall rating | Citations, 12 mo | Serious (J–L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Edgewater Skilled Nursing Center | 0.6 mi | — | 18 | 0 |
| Pacific Palms Healthcare | 0.7 mi | — | 41 | 0 |
| Broadway By The Sea | 0.7 mi | — | 26 | 0 |
| Marlora Post Acute Rehab Hosp | 0.8 mi | — | 29 | 1 |
| Shoreline Healthcare Center | 0.9 mi | — | 3 | 0 |
Every risk area ranked, a do-first checklist, and your local survey patterns
Built specifically for Alamitos Belmont Health And Rehabilitation.
100% money-back within 48 hours.
Trusted data, never guesswork. Every citation, penalty, rating and Plan of Correction on this page is sourced from public CMS records (latest release August 2026) and official state health department websites.