Hearth Record

Expert Hospice Care Inc.

A hospice in Phoenix, Arizona 85028

11811 N Tatum Blvd, Ste 3031 Rm 70, Phoenix, Arizona 85028. (602) 805-9400.

CMS’s own record, on Care Compare

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. We couldn’t read Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ list since Oct 27, 2026: qcor.cms.gov now refuses our reader. This record is as of then.

The last 24 months 38 deficiencies in 2 months of the last 36. Last cited Mar 2025. Most serious: Condition-level, immediate jeopardy. Every month

Each figure’s source sits beside it, in its section below.

What these words mean4
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.
Condition-level deficiency
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.
Immediate jeopardy
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.

What did inspectors find?

38 deficiencies cited in the last three years

The middle of the 64 hospices serving ZIP code 85028 had 5.

The last inspection on record was on Apr 17, 2025: a follow-up inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care.

Patients in immediate jeopardy, CMS’s most serious finding: Patients rights (42 CFR 418.52), Jan 23, 2025

Patients in immediate jeopardy, CMS’s most serious finding: Rights of the patient (42 CFR 418.52(c)(1)), Jan 23, 2025

Patients in immediate jeopardy, CMS’s most serious finding: Rights of the patient (42 CFR 418.52(c)(6)), Jan 23, 2025

Patients in immediate jeopardy, CMS’s most serious finding: IDG, care planning, coordination of services (42 CFR 418.56), Jan 23, 2025

Patients in immediate jeopardy, CMS’s most serious finding: Approach to service delivery (42 CFR 418.56(a)(1)), Jan 23, 2025

Patients in immediate jeopardy, CMS’s most serious finding: Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)), Jan 23, 2025

Patients in immediate jeopardy, CMS’s most serious finding: Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(1)), Jan 23, 2025

Patients in immediate jeopardy, CMS’s most serious finding: Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(4)), Jan 23, 2025

Patients in immediate jeopardy, CMS’s most serious finding: Review of the plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(d)), Jan 23, 2025

Patients in immediate jeopardy, CMS’s most serious finding: Coordination of services (42 CFR 418.56(e)(3)), Jan 23, 2025

Patients in immediate jeopardy, CMS’s most serious finding: Coordination of services (42 CFR 418.56(e)(5)), Jan 23, 2025

Patients in immediate jeopardy, CMS’s most serious finding: Core services (42 CFR 418.64), Jan 23, 2025

Patients in immediate jeopardy, CMS’s most serious finding: Physician services (42 CFR 418.64(a)), Jan 23, 2025

Patients in immediate jeopardy, CMS’s most serious finding: Nursing services (42 CFR 418.64(b)), Jan 23, 2025

4 deficiencies at condition level, the more serious of CMS’s two levels

Source:

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

38 deficiencies in 2 months of the last 36. Last cited Mar 2025. Most serious: Condition-level, immediate jeopardy. The last 3 years, to Oct 27, 2026.

38 deficiencies by month over the last 3 years. Each cell is one month.
JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
2023 NovDec
2024 JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
2025 JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
2026 JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOct

Hover or focus a month to read it.

No visit on record Visited, nothing cited A stronger orange is more serious, on its source’s own levels, read onto four bands: from the least serious it publishes to the most
Source:

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.

Source:

CMS, QCOR hospice inspection reports. Released Oct 23, 2026. Updated quarterly.

Mar 3, 2025: follow-up inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care6 deficiencies
  • IDG, care planning, coordination of services (42 CFR 418.56)

    “Condition of participation: Interdisciplinary group, care planning, and coordination of services. The hospice must designate an interdisciplinary group or groups as specified in paragraph (a) of this section which, in consultation with the patient’s attending physician, must prepare a written plan of care for each patient. The plan of care must specify the hospice care and services necessary to meet the patient and familyspecific needs identified in the comprehensive assessment as such needs relate to the terminal illness and related conditions.”

    Rule L0536. Condition-level.

  • Coordination of services (42 CFR 418.56(e)(3))

    The inspectors’ words, 120 words

    “Upon patient record review 1 of 5 (Patient #1) did not have evidence that the IDG ensures that the care and services provided are based on all assessments of the patient and family needs. Patient #1: Patient has left hip wound (closed 3x3x0.1 cm), left buttocks wound (closed 2.0x2.0x0.1cm) and coccyx pressure wound (stage II 1x0.2x0.2cm). The nurse ordered an alternating air pressure mattress on 2/27/25 (nurse visit was 2/26/25). The equipment was not present during home visit on 3/3/25. Patient has developed new Stage 1 to right hip. There was no indication in patient record for the delay in DME delivery. The agency followed up during survey and indicated that the air mattress would be delivered 3/3/25 between 2p-6p.”

    Rule L0556. Standard-level.

  • Coordination of services (42 CFR 418.56(e)(4))

    The inspectors’ words, 99 words

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 5 (Patients #3) did not have evidence that the IDG documents the sharing of information between all disciplines providing care and services in all settings, whether the care and services are provided directly or under arrangement. Patient #3: On routine nursing visit (2/24/25), the patient record indicated a BP reading of 179/57. There was no indication in patient record that a second BP reading was taken, the physician notified or any other interventions. Patient has a diagnosis of End Stage 5- Renal disease. Medication profile indicates patient has Coreg and amlodipine on hand.”

    Rule L0557. Standard-level.

  • Coordination of services (42 CFR 418.56(e)(5))

    The inspectors’ words, 133 words

    “Upon patient record review, 2 of 5 (Patients #4,5) did not have evidence that the IDG shares information on a on-going basis with non-hospice healthcare providers furnishing services unrelated to the terminal illness and related conditions. Patient #4: On admission (2/28/25), the patient record indicated a BP reading was 171/70 (left arm-sitting). There was no indication in patient record that a second BP reading was taken, ALF staff collaboration any other interventions. Patient medication profile at SOC included losartan. Patient #5: On admission (3/1/25), the patient record indicated BP reading was 220/87 (left arm-lying). There is no indication in patient record that a second BP reading was taken, the ALF staff collaboration or any other interventions. Patient has a history of CVA. Patient medication profile at SOC indicates the patient had metoprolol tartrate.”

    Rule L0558. Standard-level.

  • Content (42 CFR 418.104(a)(2))

    “Upon patient record review, 5 of 5 (Patients 1,2,3,4,5) did not have evidence that each patient record contains: • Signed election statement in accordance with 418.24 Patients 1,2,3,4,5: The election statement did not have Beneficiary and Family Centered Care Quality Improvement Organization (BFCC-QIO) contact information on the form.”

    Rule L0673. Standard-level.

  • Authentication (42 CFR 418.104(b))

    The inspectors’ words, 158 words

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 5 (Patient #1) did not have evidence that all entries are legible, clear, complete, and appropriately authenticated and dated in accordance with the organizations policies and procedures and currently accepted standards of practice. Electronic signatures are acceptable as long the hospice is following appropriate safeguards to prevent unauthorized access to the patient records. Patient #1: The nursing visit(s) indicated to obtain left mid-arm circumference (LMAC) every visit. There were variations in this measurement as follows. -On 2/24/25, the LMAC reading was 19cm -On 2/26/25, the LMAC reading was 25cm and patient eating less than 50% of meals. The NP stated this reading was an error and removed this entry from EMR during survey. -On 3/3/25, the LMAC reading on home visit was 17.5 cm. The nurse did not remove the sleeve protector when taking this measurement and verbally indicated patient LMAC fell from 19cm to 16cm since her last visit on 2/24/25.”

    Rule L0679. Standard-level.

Jan 23, 2025: reaccreditation inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care32 deficiencies
  • Patients rights (42 CFR 418.52)

    “Condition of Participation: Patient’s rights. The patient has the right to be informed of his or her rights, and the hospice must protect and promote the exercise of these rights.”

    Rule L0500. Condition-level, immediate jeopardy.

  • Rights of the patient (42 CFR 418.52(c)(1))

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 16 (Patient #4) did not have evidence that the patient has received effective pain management and symptom control from the hospice for conditions related to the terminal illness. Patient #4, No evidence of patient right to effective pain management and symptom control was provided to patient.”

    Rule L0512. Standard-level, immediate jeopardy.

  • Rights of the patient (42 CFR 418.52(c)(6))

    “Upon patient record review, there was no evidence the patient has the right to be free of mistreatment, neglect, or verbal, mental, sexual and physical abuse, including injuries of unknown source, and misappropriation of patient property. Patient #4, No evidence patient right to be free of neglect and mistreatment was prevented.”

    Rule L0517. Standard-level, immediate jeopardy.

  • IDG, care planning, coordination of services (42 CFR 418.56)

    “Condition of participation: Interdisciplinary group, care planning, and coordination of services. The hospice must designate an interdisciplinary group or groups as specified in paragraph (a) of this section which, in consultation with the patient’s attending physician, must prepare a written plan of care for each patient. The plan of care must specify the hospice care and services necessary to meet the patient and familyspecific needs identified in the comprehensive assessment as such needs relate to the terminal illness and related conditions.”

    Rule L0536. Condition-level, immediate jeopardy.

  • Approach to service delivery (42 CFR 418.56(a)(1))

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 16 (Patient #4) did not have evidence that a Registered Nurse is designated to ensure continuous assessment of the patient and family’s needs and to coordinate activities with other members of the interdisciplinary group (IDG). The IDG must work together and is responsible for supervision of the care and service for each patient and family. Patient #4, No evidence of RN continued assessment and coordination with members of the IDG.”

    Rule L0540. Standard-level, immediate jeopardy.

  • Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c))

    The inspectors’ words, 111 words

    “Upon patient record review, 2 of 16 (Patient #4,8) did not have evidence in the patient record that the hospice has developed an individualized written plan of care for each patient. The plan of care must reflect patient/family goals and interventions based on the problems identified in the initial, comprehensive, and updated comprehensive assessments. The plan of care must include all services necessary for the palliation and management of the terminal illness and related conditions. Patient #4, No evidence of documentation of initial Plan of Care including goals and interventions to address coccyx wound and bilateral heel wounds. Patient #8, No evidence of psych-social care plan addressing patient’s full code status.”

    Rule L0545. Standard-level, immediate jeopardy.

  • Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(1))

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 16 (Patient #4) did not have evidence that the plan of care includes all services necessary for the palliation and management of the terminal illness and related conditions which including interventions to manage pain and symptoms. Patient #4, No evidence of interventions for pain and symptoms management for deep coccyx wound and bilateral heel wounds in patient chart.”

    Rule L0546. Standard-level, immediate jeopardy.

  • Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(4))

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 16 (Patient #4) did not have evidence the plan of care must include all services necessary for the palliation and management of the terminal illness and related conditions, including medications and treatments. Patient #4, No evidence of wound care orders in patient chart for deep coccyx wound and bilateral heel wounds.”

    Rule L0549. Standard-level, immediate jeopardy.

  • Review of the plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(d))

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 16 (Patient #4) did not have evidence that a revised plan of care includes information from the patient’s updated comprehensive assessment and must note the patient’s progress towards outcome/goals from the plan of care. Patient #4, No evidence of Plan of Care was updated for deep coccyx wound and bilateral heel wounds.”

    Rule L0553. Standard-level, immediate jeopardy.

  • Coordination of services (42 CFR 418.56(e)(3))

    “Upon patient record review 1 of 16 (Patient #4) did not have evidence that the IDG ensures that the care and services provided are based on all assessments of the patient and family needs. Patient #4, No evidence of care provided based on assessment of the patient needs.”

    Rule L0556. Standard-level, immediate jeopardy.

  • Coordination of services (42 CFR 418.56(e)(5))

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 16 (Patient #4) did not have evidence that the IDG shares information on a on-going basis with non-hospice healthcare providers furnishing services unrelated to the terminal illness and related conditions. Patient #4, No evidence of documentation to reflect coordination of care with Wound Pro or facility.”

    Rule L0558. Standard-level, immediate jeopardy.

  • Core services (42 CFR 418.64)

    The inspectors’ words, 123 words

    “Upon observation, there was no evidence the hospice is in compliance with accepted professional standards and principles for all core services which includes nursing services, medical social services and counseling services. Patient #4, There was no evidence of hospice providing core services with the patient requiring wound care related to the hospice diagnosis. There was no evidence that the coccyx wound and bilateral heel wounds were unrelated to the hospice diagnosis. The agency has a contract with Wound Pros for wound care. In addition, there was no evidence of the hospice providing nursing services in a manner consistent with standards of practice. There was no evidence of SN managing deep coccyx wound and bilateral heel wounds that occurred after admission to the hospice.”

    Rule L0587. Standard-level, immediate jeopardy.

  • Physician services (42 CFR 418.64(a))

    The inspectors’ words, 154 words

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 16 (Patient #4) did not have evidence the hospice medical director, physician employees, and contracted physician(s) of the hospice, in conjunction with the patient’s attending physician, are responsible for the palliation and management of the terminal illness and conditions related to the terminal illness. This is demonstrated by any of the following: 1. All physician employees and those under contract must function under the supervision of the hospice medical director. 2. All physician employees and those under contract shall meet this requirement by either providing the services directly or through coordinating patient care with the attending physician. 3. If the attending physician is unavailable, the medical director, contracted physician, and/or hospice physician employee is responsible for meeting the medical needs of the patient. Patient #4, No evidence of MD involvement with deep coccyx wound and bilateral heel wounds in order to meet the medical needs of the patient.”

    Rule L0590. Standard-level, immediate jeopardy.

  • Nursing services (42 CFR 418.64(b))

    The inspectors’ words, 127 words

    “Upon observation, there was no evidence the hospice provides nursing care and services by or under the supervision of a Registered Nurse. Patient #4, No evidence of wound care for deep coccyx wound and necrotic heels being provided by or under the supervision of the Registered Nurse. No documentation of wound care orders were documented in the EMR. The hospice agency was provided with pictures on 12/23/24 of pictures of the deep tissue coccyx wound and right heel with necrotic tissue picture. Alt Administrator made a referral to Wound Pro on 12/23/24. SN made scheduled visits every two weeks to see patient. There was no evidence of change in frequency of visits by nursing and/or wound care provided. Wound Pro did not make a visit until 1/6/25.”

    Rule L0591. Standard-level, immediate jeopardy.

  • Organizational environment (42 CFR 418.100)

    “Condition of Participation: Organization and administration of services. The hospice must organize, manage, and administer its resources to provide the hospice care and services to patients, caregivers and families necessary for the palliation and management of the terminal illness and related conditions.”

    Rule L0648. Condition-level.

  • Timeframe for completion of assessment (42 CFR 418.54(b))

    The inspectors’ words, 93 words

    “Upon patient record review 2 of 16 (Patient #2,10) did not have evidence in the patient record that the hospice interdisciplinary group, in consultation with the individual’s attending physician (if any), completed the comprehensive assessment no later than 5 calendar days after the election of hospice care. Patient #2, SC initial assessment completed on 11/29/24, seven days after start of care. No evidence SC assessment was completed within 5 days. Patient #10, MSW initial assessment completed on 4/16/24, start of care was on 4/9/24. No evidence MSW assessment was completed within 5 days.”

    Rule L0523. Standard-level.

  • Content of comprehensive assessment (42 CFR 418.54(c))

    “Upon patient record review 1 of 16 (Patient #7) did not have evidence in the patient record that the comprehensive assessment identifies the physical, psychosocial, emotional, and spiritual needs related to the terminal illness that must be addressed in order to promote the hospice patient’s well-being, comfort, and dignity throughout the dying process. Patient #7, SC initial assessment refused, no evidence that the RN completed the spiritual assessment.”

    Rule L0524. Standard-level.

  • Content of comprehensive assessment (42 CFR 418.54(c)(7))

    “Upon patient record review, 4 of 16 (Patient #2,6,7,10) did not have evidence in the patient record that the comprehensive assessment includes a bereavement component which includes the needs of the patient’s family and other individuals focusing on the social, spiritual, and cultural factors that may impact their ability to cope with the patient’s death. Information gathered from the initial bereavement assessment is incorporated into the plan of care and is considered in the bereavement plan of care. Patient #2,6,7,10, No evidence of bereavement assessment completed.”

    Rule L0531. Standard-level.

  • Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(5))

    “Upon patient record review, 8 of 16 (Patient #1,2,3,4,5,8,9,10) did not have evidence the plan of care must include all services necessary for the palliation and management of the terminal illness and related conditions, including equipment and supply needs. Patient #1,2,3,4,5,8,9,10, No evidence of DME equipment listed on the Plan of care.”

    Rule L0550. Standard-level.

  • Coordination of services (42 CFR 418.56(e)(2))

    “Upon patient record review, 2 of 16 (Patient #3,7) did not have evidence that the IDG ensures that the care and services are provided in accordance with the plan of care. Patient #3, No evidence visits followed the SC frequency of 1x/month and 3 PRN. SC visits completed on 12/6/24 and 12/30/24, both visits were documented as scheduled visits. Patient #7, SC frequency 1x/month with 3 PRN every 30 days. No evidence to change frequency since patient declined SC visits.”

    Rule L0555. Standard-level.

  • Hospice aide assignments and duties (42 CFR 418.76(g)(1))

    The inspectors’ words, 270 words

    “Upon patient record review, 6 of 16 (Patient #1,4,5,6,9,10) did not have evidence in the patient record that hospice aide assignments and duties are: • Assigned to a specific patient by a registered nurse that is a member of the interdisciplinary group • Written patient care instructions for a hospice aide must be prepared by a Registered Nurse who is responsible for the supervision of a hospice aide as specified under paragraph (h) of 418.76 • There is evidence in the patient record that the plan of care; indicate what tasks are to be done by the Aide and the frequency of these tasks. The use of “PRN” or “per patient choice”, for any task, whether personal care or non-personal care tasks, are not acceptable Patient #1, No evidence on the care plan when the partial bath and bed bath should be given during the week. Patient #4, Aide frequency 2x/week and 3 PRN for needs. No indication of PRN listed. In addition, there is no evidence of Foley catheter and nephrostomy tubes documented on the care plan with no directions of care. Patient #5, Aide frequency 2x/week, first visit completed on 11/22/24, 10 days after the start of care. RN assigned both bed bath and partial bath without evidence of directions for bathing. Patient #6, Aide frequency 2x/week. No evidence of visits completed in the first week. First visit completed on 12/11/24, 9 days after start of care. Patient #9, Aide frequency 2x/week. No evidence of visits completed in the first week. First visit completed on 8/6/24. Patient #10, Aide frequency 3x/week 3 PRN. No indication of PRN listed.”

    Rule L0625. Standard-level.

  • Hospice aide assignments and duties (42 CFR 418.76(g)(2))

    The inspectors’ words, 95 words

    “Upon patient record review 1 of 16 (Patient #5) did not have evidence documentation in the patient record that a hospice aide provides services that are: • Ordered by the interdisciplinary group • Included in the plan of care • Permitted to be performed under state law by such hospice aide • Consistent with the hospice aide training Patient #5, Aide care plan directions for bed bound and reposition, document output, urine catheter, complete bed bath, complete partial bath were not completed by the aide as evidence of missing check marks on the visit form.”

    Rule L0626. Standard-level.

  • Serving the hospice patient and family (42 CFR 418.100(a))

    “Upon observation, there was no evidence the hospice provides care directly or under contract that optimizes comfort and dignity of the patient and is consistent with the patient/ family needs and goals. The patient needs and goals are a priority. Patient #4, There was no evidence of hospice nurses managing deep coccyx wound and bilateral heel wounds that occurred after admission to the hospice.”

    Rule L0650. Standard-level.

  • Governing body and administrator (42 CFR 418.100(b))

    The inspectors’ words, 159 words

    “Upon observation, there was no evidence the hospice is directed by a Board of Directors/governing body which assumes full legal authority and responsibility for the operation of the hospice as evidenced by the inability to provide core services for a patient requiring wound care related to the hospice diagnosis. There was lack of supervision of nursing services by the hospice administrator with no evidence of the hospice providing nursing services in a manner consistent with standards of practice. There was no evidence of hospice nurses managing deep coccyx wound and bilateral heel wounds that occurred after admission to the hospice. There is lack of agency oversight of medical and nursing services ensuring that patients have symptom control and are free of pain, neglect, and mistreatment. In addition, nursing services are not being provided in a manner to ensure continuous assessment of the patient and coordinating with other members of the IDG for the supervision and care of the patient.”

    Rule L0651. Standard-level.

  • Medical director contract (42 CFR 418.102(a))

    “Upon contract review, 1 of 4 (#2, Alt Medical Director Contract) did not have evidence of a contract to fulfill the role of medical director or alternate medical director, if applicable Contract#2: No evidence of Alt Medical Director was contracted or employed until the last day of the survey.”

    Rule L0666. Standard-level.

  • Authentication (42 CFR 418.104(b))

    “Upon patient record review, 6 of 16 (Patient #2,3,4,5,7,9) did not have evidence that all entries are legible, clear, complete, and appropriately authenticated and dated in accordance with the organizations policies and procedures and currently accepted standards of practice. Electronic signatures are acceptable as long the hospice is following appropriate safeguards to prevent unauthorized access to the patient records. Patient #2,3,4,5,7,9, No evidence of completion of form stating what was covered under hospice or not. Form was signed and dated.”

    Rule L0679. Standard-level.

  • Discharge or transfer of care (42 CFR 418.104(e)(2))

    “Upon patient record review, 2 of 16 (Patient #11,12) did not have evidence that if a patient revokes the election of hospice care or is discharged from hospice in accordance with §418.26, the hospice must forward to the patient’s attending physician: • A copy of the hospice discharge summary • The patient’s clinical record, if requested Patient #11, #12, No evidence of discharge summary was sent to MD.”

    Rule L0683. Standard-level.

  • Discharge or transfer of care (42 CFR 418.104(e)(3))

    “Upon patient record review, 2 of 16 (Patient #11,12) did not have evidence that the discharge summary includes all required information. Patient #11, #12, No evidence of a discharge summary in the chart.”

    Rule L0684. Standard-level.

  • Personnel qualification (42 CFR 418.114(b)(4))

    “Upon personnel record review, 1 of 13 (Personnel #13) did not have evidence that all Speech Therapy Services are provided by a qualified licensed Speech-Language Pathologist (SLP) or Audiologist in accordance with the state’s Speech-Language Pathology Practice Act and the hospice’s policies and procedures and/or job descriptions. Personnel #13, No evidence of a Speech Therapy HR record.”

    Rule L0788. Standard-level.

  • Personnel qualification (42 CFR 418.114(b)(5))

    “Upon personnel record review, 1 of 13 (Personnel #12) did not have evidence all Occupational Therapy Services are provided by a qualified licensed Occupational Therapist (OT) in accordance with the state’s Occupational Therapy Practice Act and the hospice’s policies and procedures and/or job descriptions. Personnel #12, No evidence of a Occupational Therapy HR record.”

    Rule L0789. Standard-level.

  • Personnel qualification (42 CFR 418.114(b)(7))

    “Upon personnel record review, 1 of 13 (Personnel #11) did not have evidence all Physical Therapy Services are provided by a qualified licensed Physical Therapist (PT) in accordance with the state’s Physical Therapy Practice Act and the hospice’s policies and procedures and/or job descriptions. Personnel #11, No evidence of a Physical Therapy HR record.”

    Rule L0791. Standard-level.

  • Criminal background checks (42 CFR 418.114(d)(1))

    “Upon personnel record review, 3 of 13 (Personnel #11,12,13) did not have evidence the hospice obtained a criminal background check on all contracted individuals who have direct patient care and access to patient records. Personnel 11, 12, 13: No evidence of criminal background checks.”

    Rule L0795. Standard-level.

All 3 inspections in the last three years
Inspections on record
DateVisitWhat the record says
Apr 17, 2025Follow-up inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health CareNo deficiencies cited
Mar 3, 2025Follow-up inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care6 deficiencies cited
Jan 23, 2025Reaccreditation inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care32 deficiencies cited

Is it certified?

  • Medicare-certified hospice since Feb 15, 2022.
  • Ownership: for-profit.
  • Cited for to patients’ health or safety in the last three years.
Source:

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.
Source:

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): 7.4 nurse care minutes per routine home care day, 10.4% of skilled nursing minutes at weekends and a visit near death for 91.3% of patients who died.
  • Where its patients were cared for (Jan 1, 2024 to Dec 31, 2024): 21% at home, 2% in assisted living, 78% elsewhere.
Source:

CMS, Hospice Provider Data. Released Aug 26, 2026. Updated quarterly.

Staffing measures
MeasureThis provider
Nurse care minutes per routine home care day7.4 min
Skilled nursing minutes at weekends10.4%
Visits near death91.3% of patients who died

Who owns it?

  • 24 owners or officers are people: Jeffrey Giedt (owns 5% or more directly, 35%); Jeffrey Giedt (holds 5% or more security interest, 35%); Jeffrey Giedt (general partner, 35%); Jeffrey Giedt (corporate officer, 35%); Jeffrey Giedt (corporate director, 35%); Jeffrey Giedt (runs it (operational or managerial control), 35%); Sendhil Krishnan (owns 5% or more directly, 35%); Sendhil Krishnan (holds 5% or more security interest, 35%); Sendhil Krishnan (general partner, 35%); Sendhil Krishnan (corporate officer, 35%); Sendhil Krishnan (corporate director, 35%); Sendhil Krishnan (runs it (operational or managerial control), 35%); Malini Ranat (owns 5% or more directly, 20%); Malini Ranat (holds 5% or more security interest, 20%); Malini Ranat (general partner, 20%); Malini Ranat (corporate officer, 20%); Malini Ranat (corporate director, 20%); Malini Ranat (runs it (operational or managerial control), 20%); Trang Lafitaga (owns 5% or more directly, 10%); Trang Lafitaga (holds 5% or more security interest, 10%); Trang Lafitaga (general partner, 10%); Trang Lafitaga (corporate officer, 10%); Trang Lafitaga (corporate director, 10%); Trang Lafitaga (runs it (operational or managerial control), 10%).
  • No private-equity firm among the owners CMS lists.
  • No real-estate investment trust among the owners CMS lists.
Source:

CMS, Hospice All Owners and Hospice Enrollments. Released Sep 29, 2026. Updated quarterly.

What do families say?

  • CMS gives no family caregiver survey rating: “The number of cases is too small to report Star Ratings.”
  • CMS’s Hospice Care Index: 7 of 10 (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024).
  • 57.5% of patients were assessed on all seven of CMS’s measures at the start of care (Oct 1, 2024 to Sep 30, 2025); 60% had visits from a nurse or social worker on at least 2 of their last 3 days (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024).
Source:

CMS, CAHPS Hospice Survey and Hospice Provider Data. Released Aug 26, 2026. Updated quarterly.

Ratings and measures, as published
MeasureRating
Family caregiver survey ratingCMS star rating from its survey of patients’ family caregivers, 1 to 5Not rated
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 threshold7 of 10

How does it compare nearby?

  • Of the 64 hospices CMS’s data show serving patients in ZIP code 85028, where this hospice’s office is, the middle number of deficiencies cited in the last three years was 5; this one had 38.
Source:

CMS, Hospice ZIP Data. Released Aug 26, 2026. Updated quarterly.

CMS, QCOR hospice inspection reports. Released Oct 23, 2026. Updated quarterly.

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

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.

Source:

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.

How to read a record

Four things every record does, shown on an example record made up for this guide.

An example record, made up for this guide

An example nursing home

Made up for this guide: no real place is shown

Not fully inspected in over two years (CMS flag)

11 health citations at the latest inspection cycle

The state average is 14.3.

Source:

CMS, State and US Averages and Health Deficiencies. Released Oct 8, 2026. Updated monthly.

From the homeNone yet. Replies and paid listings aren’t open, and when they open they will sit here, below the record.

1 of 4

Every fact names its source.

Who published it, when, and how often it changes sit beside each fact, with a link to the agency’s own file.

Sign in

A free account keeps your watch list, shortlists, comparisons and saved searches on every device, and can email you when something you watch changes. Browsing never needs one.