Mercy Hospice
A hospice in Fort Smith, Arkansas 72903
6801 Rogers Ave., Fort Smith, Arkansas 72903. (479) 314-1150.
Watch and the shortlist are kept with a free account, on every device. Your watch list. CMS’s own record is on Care Compare.
The short answer
Record last released by CMS on Oct 23, 2026.
- 3 deficiencies cited in the last three years
- 3of 5 family caregiver rating
- 10of 10 CMS’s Hospice Care Index
Each figure’s source sits beside it, in its section below.
What these words mean3
- Star ratings
- CMS rates some kinds of place from 1 to 5 stars, more stars meaning better on CMS’s own measures for that kind: for a nursing home, its health inspections, staffing and quality measures. A rating is CMS’s summary of those measures; it doesn’t promise good care. Source: CMS, Care Compare and the Five-Star Quality Rating System.
- Inspection (survey)
- A visit by state inspectors, often unannounced, who check a place against the rules it must meet. For nursing homes and other places Medicare pays, CMS calls these visits surveys: a standard survey of a nursing home comes at least every 15 months, and a complaint survey whenever a complaint calls for one. Source: CMS; 42 CFR 488.308.
- Deficiency, citation, violation
- What inspectors write up when a place didn’t meet a rule: the rule, what they saw, and when. CMS calls it a deficiency; states may say citation or violation. It is the inspectors’ finding, not a court’s, and the place is usually asked for a plan to correct it. Source: CMS, statement of deficiencies (Form CMS-2567); each state’s licensing agency.
What did inspectors find?
3 deficiencies cited in the last three years
The middle of the 7 hospices serving ZIP code 72903 had 6.
The last inspection on record was on Jan 16, 2026: a recertification inspection by the state.
CMS, QCOR hospice inspection reports. Released Oct 23, 2026. Updated quarterly.
CMS, Hospice ZIP Data. Released Aug 26, 2026. Updated quarterly.
When those deficiencies happened
3 deficiencies in 1 month of the last 36. Last cited Jan 2026. Most serious: Standard-level. The last 3 years, to Oct 27, 2026.
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | Nov | Dec | ||||||||||
| 2024 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2025 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2026 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct |
Hover or focus a month to read it.
Hearth Record drew this from the dates and levels in the source’s own records.
Each deficiency, as cited
Rule titles as CMS’s inspectors cite them, set in sentence case.
CMS, QCOR hospice inspection reports. Released Oct 23, 2026. Updated quarterly.
Jan 7, 2026: recertification inspection by the state3 deficiencies
-
Coordination of services (42 CFR 418.56(e)(2))
The inspectors’ words, 389 words
“Based on a review of clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined that the agency failed to follow the written plan of care in four (#1, #16, #18, and #19) of nineteen (#1-#19) clinical records reviewed. This failure had the potential to impact all patients currently on census and may result in missed or delayed symptom management, ineffective care delivery, and unmet physical, psychosocial, or emotional needs. Findings follow: A review of Clinical Record #1, with a start-of-care date of 04/28/25, identified a patient diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. Review of the document titled “Hospice Plan of Care Update” indicated planned Medical Social Worker (MSW) visits to address psychosocial needs at a minimum frequency of once per month and Chaplain visits for spiritual support one to two times per month. There was no documentation to support that SW or Chaplain visits were completed during the period reviewed, from 09/21/25 through 11/18/25.A review of Clinical Record #16, with a start-of-care date of 11/24/25, identified a patient diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Review of the Aide Care Plan had orders for the aide frequency of five times a week and indicated instructions for the hospice aide to obtain and record the patient’s weight at each visit. No documentation was found to support that weights were obtained or recorded by the aide. A review of Clinical Record #18, with a start-of-care date of 08/20/25, identified a patient diagnosed with diastolic congestive heart failure. Review of the “Hospice Plan of Care Update” indicated planned Chaplain visits for spiritual support once per month. There was no documentation to support that a Chaplain visit occurred during November 2025.A review of Clinical Record #19, with a start-of-care date of 11/25/25, identified a patient diagnosed with malignant neoplasm of the sigmoid colon. Review of the Aide Care Plan indicated instructions for hospice aide services to “assist with ambulation using a wheelchair” at each visit. No documentation was found to support that ambulation assistance was provided. An interview conducted on 12/10/25 during a home visit with Agency Personnel #5 revealed that the patient is bed- or chair-bound and unable to stand or ambulate.During an interview conducted on 12/12/25 at 9:30 a.m., Agency Personnel #1 and #2 confirmed that the agency failed to ensure that the care and services were provided in accordance with the plan of care.”
-
Medical social services (42 CFR 418.64(c))
The inspectors’ words, 753 words
“Based on a review of clinical records, home visits, and staff interviews, it was determined that the hospice failed to ensure the provision of adequate social work services in six (#1, #6, #7, #10, #13, and #18) of nineteen (#1-#19) clinical records reviewed. The hospice social worker provided minimal services despite identified psychosocial needs, while psychosocial interventions typically within the scope of social work practice were performed by other members of the interdisciplinary team. This failure had the potential to affect all patients currently on census and may result in unmet psychosocial needs and a lack of discipline-specific care delivery. Findings follow: A review of Clinical Record #1, with a start-of-care date of 04/28/25, identified a patient diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. Review of the document titled “Hospice Plan of Care Update” revealed documentation by the Medical Social Worker (MSW) stating, “Visits will be done at a minimum of once a month and increase visits as needed if possible since I am presently the only Social Worker and carry the whole caseload of our hospice,” indicating that visit frequency was determined by staff availability rather than patient needs. The MSW documented an attempted visit on 04/30/25, during which he was told to “go away” through the door. A telephone call was made on 05/02/25, at which time the patient’s spouse requested that the MSW “come next week.” No further attempts to contact or visits were documented after that date.A review of Clinical Record #6, with a start-of-care date of 11/13/25, identified a patient diagnosed with lung cancer. Review of the “Plan of Care Update” dated 11/13/25 revealed no social worker frequencies of visits, interventions or goals.A review of Clinical Record #7, with a start-of-care date of 10/27/25, identified a patient diagnosed with congestive heart failure. Review of a Chaplain initial visit note dated 10/29/25 revealed psychosocial concerns including the patient had an autistic son who lived in patient’s home alone while patient resided in a nursing facility. Patient’s nephew helped take care of the patient’s autistic son but the nephew was unsure what would happen to the son after the patient’s death. Review of the Social Worker initial note dated 10/30/25 revealed no assessment, interventions, or goals relating to the psychosocial issues the chaplain had identified.A review of Clinical Record #10, with a start-of-care date of 11/16/25, identified a patient diagnosed with cerebrovascular accident. Review of a Chaplain initial visit note dated 11/19/25 identified psychosocial concerns, including the patient’s reported feelings of disconnection and lack of communication with his daughter, by the following statement, “He is married to [named person]. She has her children and he has his. His children are twins, a girl and a boy. The girl [named person] stopped talking to him when he remarried…” Review of the Medical Social Worker (MSW) initial visit note dated 12/01/25 revealed no assessment, interventions, or goals relating to the psychosocial issues the chaplain had identified. A review of Clinical Record #13, with a start-of-care date of 11/06/25, identified a patient diagnosed with lung cancer. Observation of the Interdisciplinary Group (IDG) meeting on 12/09/25 revealed the identification of multiple psychosocial concerns, including the patient’s expressed fear of her daughter and the potential for financial exploitation by the daughter. The Skilled Nurse (SN) reported that upon the daughter’s release from jail, she removed the patient from the skilled nursing facility because she could not afford rent without access to the patient’s income. Despite the complexity of these psychosocial issues, the Medical Social Worker (MSW) provided minimal input, and the plan of care reflected a visit frequency of once per month.A review of Clinical Record #18, with a start-of-care date of 08/20/25, identified a patient diagnosed with diastolic congestive heart failure. Review of the document titled “Hospice Plan of Care Update” revealed documentation indicating “MSW declined at this time.” The Medical Social Worker (MSW) documented a telephone call on 08/22/25 with the patient’s niece, during which the niece stated that a visit was not needed at that time but requested that the MSW call back in a couple of weeks. The MSW documented agreement with this plan; however, no further contact attempts or visits were documented after that date. During a home visit conducted on 12/11/25, the patient’s niece was asked whether she would be agreeable to MSW visits and stated that she would be agreeable.During an interview conducted on 12/12/25 at 9:30 a.m., Agency Personnel #1 and #2 confirmed that the agency failed to provide psychosocial assessments, interventions, or goals related the patient and family needs.”
-
Hospice aide assignments and duties (42 CFR 418.76(g)(1))
The inspectors’ words, 900 words
“Based on a review of clinical records and staff interviews, it was determined the Registered Nurse (RN) failed to ensure that written instructions for hospice aide (HA) services were individualized to meet the specific needs of each patient in 10 ( #1, #2, #6, #8, #9, #10, #12, #14, #15, and #16,) of 16 (#1, #3-#12, #14-#16, and #18-#19) patients receiving HA services. Specifically, review of HA care plans revealed that bathing tasks were listed as “Partial/Complete Bed Bath, Aide Tub/Shower Bath, and Partial/Complete Sponge Bath” without patient-specific instructions indicating which type of bath was appropriate, under what conditions each bathing method should be used, or how the aide was to determine the safest and most appropriate bathing approach for the individual patient. This failure had the potential to impact all patients currently on census receiving HA services for inconsistent care delivery and placing patients at risk for unsafe or inappropriate bathing practices. Findings follow: A review of Clinical Record #1, with a start-of-care date of 04/28/25, identified a patient diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. Review of the Aide Care Plan revealed instructions for Hospice Aide (HA) services that included “Aide Partial/Complete Bed Bath,” “Aide Tub/Shower Bath,” and “Partial/Complete Sponge Bath” at each visit. The care plan lacked specificity regarding the type of bath to be provided and did not identify the level of patient participation that could be safely accommodated.A review of Clinical Record #2, with a start-of-care date of 10/24/25, identified a patient diagnosed with congestive heart failure. Review of the Aide Care Plan indicated instructions for HA services that included “Aide Partial/Complete Bed Bath,” “Aide Tub/Shower Bath,” and “Partial/Complete Sponge Bath” at each visit. The care plan lacked specificity regarding the type of bath to be provided and did not identify the level of patient participation that could be safely accommodated.A review of Clinical Record #6, with a start-of-care date of 11/13/25, identified a patient diagnosed with lung cancer. Review of the Aide Care Plan revealed HA service instructions that included “Aide Partial/Complete Bed Bath,” “Aide Tub/Shower Bath,” and “Partial/Complete Sponge Bath” at each visit. The care plan lacked specificity regarding the type of bath to be provided and did not identify the level of patient participation that could be safely accommodated.A review of Clinical Record #8, with a start-of-care date of 10/16/25, identified a patient diagnosed with pulmonary fibrosis. Review of the Aide Care Plan revealed HA service instructions that included “Aide Partial/Complete Bed Bath,” “Aide Tub/Shower Bath,” and “Partial/Complete Sponge Bath” at each visit. The care plan lacked specificity regarding the type of bath to be provided and did not identify the level of patient participation that could be safely accommodated.A review of Clinical Record #9, with a start-of-care date of 11/26/25, identified a patient with a diagnosis of atherosclerosis of native coronary artery. Review of the Aide Care Plan revealed HA service instructions that included, “Partial/Complete bed Bath” at each visit. The care plan lacked specificity regarding the type of bed bath to be provided and did not identify the level of patient participation that could be safely accommodated.A review of Clinical Record #10, with a start-of-care date of 11/16/25, identified a patient with a diagnosis of Cerebrovascular accident. Review of the Aide Care Plan revealed HA service instructions that included, “Partial/Complete bed Bath” and “Partial/Complete sponge bath” at each visit. The care plan lacked specificity regarding the type of bed/sponge bath to be provided and did not identify the level of patient participation that could be safely accommodated.A review of Clinical Record #12, with a start-of-care date of 11/10/25, identified a patient with a diagnosis of senile degeneration of the brain. Review of the Aide Care Plan revealed HA service instructions that included, “Partial/Complete bed Bath” and “Perform complete bed bath, if unable to tolerate shower “at each visit. The care plan lacked specificity regarding the type of bed bath or shower to be provided and did not identify the level of patient participation that could be safely accommodated.A review of Clinical Record #14, with a start-of-care date of 11/20/25, identified a patient with a diagnosis of breast cancer. Review of the Aide Care Plan revealed HA service instructions that included, “Partial/Complete sponge Bath” at each visit. The care plan lacked specificity regarding the type of bed bath to be provided and did not identify the level of patient participation that could be safely accommodated.A review of Clinical Record #15, with a start-of-care date of 11/07/25, identified a patient diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Review of the Aide Care Plan revealed instructions for HA services that included “Aide Partial/Complete Bed Bath” and “Aide Tub/Shower Bath” at each visit. The care plan lacked specificity regarding the type of bath to be provided and did not identify the level of patient participation that could be safely accommodated.A review of Clinical Record #16, with a start-of-care date of 11/24/25, identified a patient diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Review of the Aide Care Plan indicated instructions for HA services that included “Aide Partial/Complete Bed Bath” and “Aide Tub/Shower Bath” at each visit. The care plan lacked specificity regarding the type of bath to be provided and did not identify the level of patient participation that could be safely accommodated.During an interview conducted on 12/12/25 at 9:30 a.m., Agency Personnel #1 and #2 confirmed the lack of specific and individualized written instructions documented regarding bathing services.”
All 2 inspections in the last three years
| Date | Visit | What the record says |
|---|---|---|
| Jan 16, 2026 | Recertification inspection by the state | No deficiencies cited |
| Jan 7, 2026 | Recertification inspection by the state | 3 deficiencies cited |
Is it certified?
- Medicare-certified hospice since Feb 27, 1987.
- Ownership: non-profit.
- No For hospices, home health agencies, hospitals and dialysis facilities, CMS writes deficiencies at two levels. Standard is the usual one; condition-level is the more serious, when a problem is serious enough that the provider doesn’t meet a whole condition of taking part in Medicare. Source: CMS, State Operations Manual. deficiency or CMS’s most serious finding: the place’s failure to meet a rule caused, or was likely to cause, serious injury, harm, impairment or death to someone in its care. Source: CMS; 42 CFR 489.3. on record in the last three years.
CMS, Hospice General Information. Released Aug 26, 2026. Updated quarterly.
CMS, QCOR hospice inspection reports. Released Oct 23, 2026. Updated quarterly.
Has anything been proven against it?
- CMS doesn’t publish fines or other penalties for hospices, so none are shown.
- 0 deficiencies cited in the last three years came from inspections that included a complaint investigation.
CMS, QCOR hospice inspection reports. Released Oct 23, 2026. Updated quarterly.
Who does the caring?
- From Medicare claims (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024): 11.8 nurse care minutes per routine home care day, 7.7% of skilled nursing minutes at weekends and a visit near death for 90.9% of patients who died.
- Where its patients were cared for (Jan 1, 2024 to Dec 31, 2024): 65% at home, 2% in assisted living, 23% in a nursing facility, 8% in an inpatient hospice, 1% elsewhere.
CMS, Hospice Provider Data. Released Aug 26, 2026. Updated quarterly.
| Measure | This provider |
|---|---|
| Nurse care minutes per routine home care day | 11.8 min |
| Skilled nursing minutes at weekends | 7.7% |
| Visits near death | 90.9% of patients who died |
Who owns it?
- Mercy Health Fort Smith Communities owns 100% directly since Jan 14, 2008.
- 9 owners or officers are people: Jamie Wilke (corporate officer, 0%); Shannon Sock (corporate director, 0%); John M Mohart (corporate director, 0%); Ryan Gehrig (corporate officer, 0%); Jennifer Cohen (managing employee (on the payroll), 0%); Jeffrey Peter Ciaramita (corporate director, 0%); Greta Wilcher Mcdonald (corporate officer, 0%); Greta Wilcher Mcdonald (managing employee (on the payroll), 0%); Brian Day (corporate officer, 0%).
- No private-equity firm among the owners CMS lists.
- No real-estate investment trust among the owners CMS lists.
CMS, Hospice All Owners and Hospice Enrollments. Released Sep 29, 2026. Updated quarterly.
| Organisation | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mercy Health Fort Smith Communities | Owns 5% or more directly | 100% | Jan 14, 2008 |
| Mercy Health | Owns 5% or more through other companies | 100% | Feb 28, 1987 |
What do families say?
- Family caregivers rate it 3 of 5 in CMS’s survey (Oct 1, 2023 to Sep 30, 2025): 81% rated it 9 or 10 out of 10, and 82% would definitely recommend it.
- CMS’s Hospice Care Index: 10 of 10 (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024).
- 93.32% of patients were assessed on all seven of CMS’s measures at the start of care (Oct 1, 2024 to Sep 30, 2025); 43.8% had visits from a nurse or social worker on at least 2 of their last 3 days (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024).
CMS, CAHPS Hospice Survey and Hospice Provider Data. Released Aug 26, 2026. Updated quarterly.
| Measure | Rating |
|---|---|
| Family caregiver survey ratingCMS star rating from its survey of patients’ family caregivers, 1 to 5 | 3 of 5 |
| Hospice Care IndexCMS’s Hospice Care Index, 0 to 10 (higher is better): a point for each of ten measures from Medicare claims on which the hospice meets CMS’s threshold | 10 of 10 |
How does it compare nearby?
- Of the 7 hospices CMS’s data show serving patients in ZIP code 72903, where this hospice’s office is, the middle number of deficiencies cited in the last three years was 6; this one had 3.
CMS, Hospice ZIP Data. Released Aug 26, 2026. Updated quarterly.
CMS, QCOR hospice inspection reports. Released Oct 23, 2026. Updated quarterly.
| Place | Deficiencies, 3 years |
|---|---|
| Mercy Hospice This hospice | 3 |
| Heart of Hospice, LLC | 10 |
| Area Agency on Aging of Western Arkansas Inc. | 7 |
| Area Agency on Aging of Western Arkansas, Inc. | 4 |
| Gentiva | 7 |
| Elite Hospice | 6 |
| Elite Hospice | 3 |
What the record doesn’t say
- CMS doesn’t publish fines or other penalties for hospices, so none are shown.
- Only complaints that led to a citation appear; complaints that didn’t aren’t published.
- CMS ended its Special Focus Program for hospices with serious problems on Feb 14, 2025, so no hospice is marked as one.
- Hospice quality measures have a gap from October 2025: CMS replaced its patient assessment then, and public results from the new one (HOPE) are expected around November 2027.
Sources
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Hospice General Information (yc9t-dgbk).
Released Aug 26, 2026 and checked Oct 27, 2026. Updated quarterly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Hospice Provider Data (252m-zfp9).
Released Aug 26, 2026 and checked Oct 27, 2026. Updated quarterly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, CAHPS Hospice Survey (gxki-hrr8).
Released Aug 26, 2026 and checked Oct 27, 2026. Updated quarterly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, QCOR hospice inspection reports (Hospice Survey Reports - Oct 2021 through Sep 2026.xlsx).
Released Oct 23, 2026 and checked Oct 27, 2026. Updated quarterly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Hospice All Owners (e983965e-1603-4cb8-82b5-c40090e380d1).
Released Sep 29, 2026 and checked Oct 27, 2026. Updated quarterly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Hospice Enrollments (25704213-e833-4b8b-9dbc-58dd17149209).
Released Sep 29, 2026 and checked Oct 27, 2026. Updated quarterly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Hospice ZIP Data (95rg-2usp).
Released Aug 26, 2026 and checked Oct 27, 2026. Updated quarterly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
If you believe something here is wrong, a correction starts with the agency whose record this copies: CMS. CMS’s own record is on Care Compare. If Hearth Record copied something wrongly, it will fix it and log the correction publicly, with its date: how corrections work.
This copy of the record was made on Oct 27, 2026.
From the hospice
The public record above comes first. Anything the hospice adds will appear here, below it, and say who wrote it.
Replies
None. Replies aren’t open yet. When they open, the hospice will be able to answer any finding for free, and the reply will show beside that finding, unedited and dated.
Paid listing
None. Paid listings aren’t open yet. When they open, anything paid for will say “Paid by the hospice”, and paying will never change a finding, a rating or the order of results.