Profile
Carl E. Nordstrom, MD Santa Monica CA US
Carl E. Nordstrom, MD, is an Associate Director of the UCLA GI Fellowship Program, based at 1223 16th St, Ste 3100, Santa Monica, CA. In this role, he contributes to the education and training of gastroenterology fellows, reflecting his commitment to advancing clinical and academic excellence in gastrointestinal medicine. Dr. Nordstrom’s expertise spans both patient care and academic leadership, with a focus on fostering the next generation of specialists in the field.
Dr. Nordstrom earned his BA in biology and religious studies from Hamline University and his MD from the University of Illinois at Chicago. His interdisciplinary academic background underscores a dedication to integrating scientific rigor with a holistic approach to medicine. As a respected figure in gastroenterology, he is associated with the prestigious UCLA Health system, where he supports clinical, educational, and research initiatives that enhance patient outcomes and medical innovation. His work at the intersection of academia and practice highlights his influence in shaping gastrointestinal care standards.
Location Reviews
Carl E. Nordstrom, MD, has an overall rating of 4.9 based on 102 reviews, though star ratings are only displayed for physicians with at least 30 survey responses. The majority of reviews highlight positive attributes, with patients frequently praising his professionalism, knowledge, and communication skills. Many note that he is a “good listener,” “informative,” and “caring,” with one reviewer describing him as “very knowledgeable, caring, and professional” during a visit for digestive disease concerns. Patients also appreciate his approachability and the time he dedicates to appointments, with some emphasizing that he “never feels rushed.”
However, a smaller subset of reviews expresses more critical feedback. A 3.4-star review from a patient describes Dr. Nordstrom as disinterested and dismissive, with the reviewer noting a “blank/disinterested stare” and a perceived lack of engagement during two separate visits. Another reviewer questions whether negative feedback refers to the same physician, citing conflicting accounts of his demeanor. These discrepancies suggest variability in patient experiences, though the overall sentiment remains predominantly positive. The reviews also contain inconsistencies, such as future dates (e.g., December 18, 2025), which may reflect data entry errors.