Hearth Record

Mission Hospice and Palliative Care

A hospice in Centennial, Colorado 80112

12835 E Arapahoe Rd Tower I Ste 400, Centennial, Colorado 80112. (303) 708-1122.

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.

The last 24 months 12 deficiencies in 1 month of the last 36. Last cited Feb 2026. Most serious: Standard-level. Every month

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

What these words mean2
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?

12 deficiencies cited in the last three years

The middle of the 27 hospices serving ZIP code 80112 had 5.

The last inspection on record was on Feb 12, 2026: a reaccreditation inspection by The Joint Commission.

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

12 deficiencies in 1 month of the last 36. Last cited Feb 2026. Most serious: Standard-level. The last 3 years, to Oct 27, 2026.

12 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.

Feb 12, 2026: reaccreditation inspection by The Joint Commission12 deficiencies
  • Exercise of rights/respect for proprty/person (42 CFR 418.52(b)(1)(i))

    “Observed in Record Review. In 6 of 13 patient records reviewed, the organization failed to respect the patient’s rights to participate in decisions about their care. In HOSRRHV #1, HOSRRNHV #1, HOSRRNHV #2, HOSRRNHV #4, and HOSRRNHV #7 the patient’s had a signed NOMNC in their admission documents. This was reviewed and validated with the Administrator and interim DCPS.”

    Rule L0505. Standard-level.

  • Rights of the patient (42 CFR 418.52(c)(2))

    The inspectors’ words, 166 words

    “Observed in Record Review. In 12 of 13 patient records reviewed, the organization failed to respect the patient’s right to participate in decisions about their care, treatment or services. In HOSRRHV #1 the non covered items form did not have a date it was requested nor a date when it was given to the patient. In HOSRRHV #2 the hospice surveyor observed that neither the Admission Consent nor the Election of Benefits included language where the patient could request a copy of non covered items from the organization. In HOSRRNHV #1, HOSRRNHV #2, HOSRRNHV #3, HOSRRNHV #4, HOSRRNHV #5 ,HOSRRNHV #6, HOSRRNHV #7, HOSRRDC #1, HOSRRDC #2 , HOSRRDC #2, and HOSRRBRV #1 the surveyor observed that in the EOB the section on whether the patient or caregiver would like an addendum was left blank. Upon review of the charts there were no services, DME, or medications that should have been covered and were not. This was reviewed and validated with the Administrator and interim DCPS.”

    Rule L0513. Standard-level.

  • Content of comprehensive assessment (42 CFR 418.54(c)(5))

    The inspectors’ words, 187 words

    “Observed in Record Review. In 13 of 13 patient records reviewed, the need for volunteer services was not assessed. In HOSRRHV #1, HOSRRHV #2, HOSRRNHV #1, HOSRRNHV #2, HOSRRNHV #3, HOSRRNHV #4, HOSRRNHV #5, HOSRRNHV #6, HOSRRNHV #6, HOSRRNHV #7, HOSRRNHV #8, HOSRRDC #1, HOSRRDC #2, HOSRRBRV #1, HOSRRBRV #2 the hospice nurse surveyor observed that the clinicians did not assess for the need of a volunteer. . In HOSRRHV #2 the patient had a diagnosis of ALS and a fall risk assessment was not completed by the nurse at SOC per the organizational policy Comprehensive Assessment. The organization failed to accurately measure the patient’s target pain goal. In HOSRRNHV #5 the patient was in pain and there was a pain care plan but the Pain Assessment Policy states that the clinician will assess and document the patient’s pain goal in the care plan. The nurse did not enter a pain goal in the assessment for this patient but the care plan stated that the patient’s acceptable level of pain control was 2 out of 10. This was reviewed and validated with the Administrator and interim DCPS.”

    Rule L0529. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 123 words

    “Observed in Record Review. In 4 of 13 patient records reviewed, the written plan of care was not based on the patient’s goal. In HOSRRHV #1, HOSRRNHV #4 , HOSRRNHV #6, and HOSRRBRV #1 the patient’s were non verbal and an observational tool was used to assess for pain. The care plan for pain stated, Pain is at or below acceptable level as determined by the patient. The patient’s were nonverbal so unable to give an acceptable level of pain. Additionally, the organization’s Pain Assessment policy 2-032.1 stated if patient unable to communicate pain using a rating scale then the clinician will asses behavioral factors and include this in the assessment. This was reviewed and validated with the Administrator and the interim DCPS.”

    Rule L0545. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 863 words

    “Observed in Record Review. In 11 of 13 patient records reviewed, the organization failed to plan the patients care. In HOSRRHV #1 the patient was on ASA 81 mg daily and the nurse did not include a care plan on bleeding precautions. This patient was also on Oxygen 2 liters via nasal cannula continuous and there was no care plan on oxygen safety. The nurse also assessed combativeness and constipation and there were no care plans entered addressing these issues. In HOSRRHV #2 the patient was assessed to be incontinent of bowel and had difficulty swallowing with a nutritional decline per CTI, and there were no nursing care plans addressing these issues. In HOSRRNHV #1 the patient was agitated and there was not a care plan addressing this. In HOSRRNHV #2 the patient had a diagnosis of cardiac and renal failure , dysphagia,, and a fall risk and there were no care plans entered into the POC addressing these issues. In HOSRRNHV #3 the patient was on 81 mg of ASA daily and there was no care plan addressing bleeding precautions in the POC. Additionally the pain goal in the care plan states 3 /10 or less this was never assessed in the nursing assessment. This patient also had severe abdominal pain at admission and was treated with oxycodone per IDT and there was no care plan addressing this. In IDT the nurse documented that the patient had a diagnosis of COPD and was currently smoking and this was also not addressed in the care plans in the POC. In HOSRRNHV #4 the patient was assessed for agitation and on Lorazepam and Haloperidol and there was no care plan addressing this issue. Additionally, this patient was on ASA 81 mg and no bleeding precaution care plan was entered and the patient was also a fall. rsisk and no fall risk care plan was entered into the POC. In HOSRRNHV #5 the patient was a started on oxygen 7 days after admission no oxygen care plan entered. Pt also had issues with inability to swallow and there was no care plan entered to address this. In HOSRRNHV #6 the patient was started on oxygen and an oxygen safety care plan was not entered into the POC. In HOSRRBRV #1 the patient was assessed by RN as a fall risk and on Oxygen therapy. There were no care plans entered in the POC on either fall or oxygen safety. In HOSRRHV #1 ,, HOSRRNHV #2 , HOSRRNHV #5, HOSRRNHV #6, HOSRRNHV #7, and HOSRRDC #1 the SOC POC had frequencies for both MSW and Chaplain, e.g. one time per month, but there were no care plans entered for either discipline. In HOSRRNHV #1, HOSRRNHV #2, and HOSRRBRV #1 there was a frequency for MSW monthly and prn in the POC and there were no care plans entered. In HOSRRNHV #3, HOSRRNHV #4 , and HOSRRDC #2 the chaplain had a frequency of one time per month and there were no care plans entered into the POC.In HOSRRNHV #7 there were no RN care plans established at SOC with a nursing frequency order of one time per week for 90 ats, The first care plans noted 28 day later in IDT meeting. In HOSRRHV #2, HOSRRNHV #3, HOSRRNHV #4, and HOSRRNHV #5 the patient had a foley catheter and the plan of care did not include orders for the size of the catheter, the balloon size, and the type and amount of fluid used to fill. In HOSRRNHV #2 the patient had wounds to her right leg, right inner groin and sacrum and there were no wound care orders found. Additionally, in this patient there was an order from the provider instructing the nurse to Initiate Oxygen therapy and titrate up as needed for comfort. No parameters given and the patient is currently on 4 liters of oxygen continuous. In HOSRRDC #2 the patient had a suprapubic catheter, no orders found for the catheter size, balloon size and fill, and the frequency of changes. In HOSRRNHV #4 and HOSRRBRV #1 there were duplicate medications entered for pain with no clear indication when the patient was to take one over the other, The patient was on Tylenol 325 mg 2 tablets every 6 hours for pain, Oxycodone 5 mg tablet every 4 hours for pain, and Morphine Sulfate 0.25 ml every 3 hours for pain. Additionally these patient’s also had an order for Venelex External Ointment with no clear indication of where the put the topical agent, the medication list stated to affected areas. In HOSRRNHV #3 the patient had duplicate orders for pain medications without clear indication when to take one over the other. The patient had orders for Lorazepam 0.20 ml every 4 hours for pain, Oxycodone 0.25 ml every 4 hours for pain, and Tylenol extra strength 500 mg every 6 hours for pain. In HOSRRNHV #7 the patient had orders for Polymyxin B-Trimethoprim solution one in affected eye, no documentation which eye and also Voltaren external ointment to apply to affected areas no specific documentation as to which area to apply it to. This was reviewed and validated with the Administrator interim DCPS.”

    Rule L0546. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 106 words

    “Observed in Record Review. In 1 of 13 patient records reviewed, there were missed visits, but the physician was not notified. In HOSRRHV #1 the patient had a missed visit in January and the provider was sent a fax with no reason entered for the missed visit or who submitted the missed visit. Per the organization’s Missed Visit policy 2-.087.1 the physician should have been notified of the reason for the missed visit as well as there should have been documentation as to who completed the missed visit and if any follow up was required. This was reviewed and validated with the Administrator and interim DPCS.”

    Rule L0557. Standard-level.

  • Counseling services (42 CFR 418.64(d)(1)(iv))

    “Observed in Record Review. In 1 of 2 patient records reviewed, the organization failed to send out bereavement mailings at designated time frames. In HOSRRBRV #1 the care giver did not receive their three month mailing/contact per the Bereavement Services Policy -010.1. This was reviewed and validated with the Administrator.”

    Rule L0596. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 184 words

    “Observed in Record Review. In 5 of 13 patient records reviewed, the organization failed to prepare written patient care instructions for the hospice aide. In HOSRRHV #1 the patient was on aspirin 81 mg daily, oxygen 2 liters via nasal cannula continuous, and was getting wound care to her left heel. The aide care plan did not include bleeding precautions. Additionally, the aide care plan did not give instructions as to what the aide should do with oxygen during the shower as well as what to do with the dressing if it was dislodged during the shower. In HOSRRNHV #2, HOSRRNHV #6, and HOSRRBRV #1 the patient was a fall risk and on Oxygen 2 liters via nasal cannula continuous and no safety precautions documented in the aide care plan. Additionally, the aide was not given specific instructions of what to do with the oxygen when giving the patient a bath. In HOSRRDC#1 the patient was deemed a fall risk and this was not entered in the precautions for the Home Health Aide. This was reviewed and validated with the Administrator and interim DCPS.”

    Rule L0625. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 91 words

    “Observed in Patient Home. In 1 of 1 home visits conducted, where a home health aide provided care the surveyor observed that the home health aide failed to follow the aiide care plan. In HHRRHV #1 the home health aide care plan stated that the home health aide would provide assistance with dressing, comb hair, fort care, shampoo hair, skin care, oral hygiene, and make bed with each visit. The home health aide did not offer or provide any of these services. This was reviewed and validated with the interim DPCS.”

    Rule L0626. Standard-level.

  • Training (42 CFR 418.100(g)(3))

    “Observed in HR File Review. In 1 of 7 HR files reviewed, for hospice the organization failed to ensure staff competence was assessed and documented once every three years or more frequently as required by policy. On review of HosHR#4 for the Medical Director there was no documentation of a competency assessment noted in the HR file. This observation was reviewed with the HR director and Administrator.”

    Rule L0663. Standard-level.

  • Content (42 CFR 418.104(a)(7))

    The inspectors’ words, 111 words

    “Observed in Patient Home. In 1 of 1 home visits conducted, where medication reconciliation was done by the surveyor it was observed that the medication list in the home did not reconcile with the list from the organization. In HOSRRHV #2 the patient had the following medications in the home which were not on the organization’s medication list: Cranberry Concentrate with C 30,000 mg 1 tablet daily, Chlorphenoxamine Maleate 4 mg one tablet every day, Probiotic 10 20 Billion units 1 by mouth daily, Aleve 220 mg 1 every 12 hours, and Imodium AD 2 mg one tablet by mouth every day. This was reviewed and validated with the Interim DPCS.”

    Rule L0678. Standard-level.

  • Discharge or transfer of care (42 CFR 418.104(e)(1)(i))

    The inspectors’ words, 98 words

    “Observed in Record Review. In 2 of 2 patient records reviewed, where the patient’s had a live discharge it was observed by the Hospice surveyor that the organization failed to provide a discharge summary to the receiving hospice agency or community provider. In HOSRRDCV #1 the community provider was not provided a discharge summary and HOSRRDC #2 the patient was transferred to another Hospice and they too did not receive a discharge summary per the organization;’s Transfer Information Policy 2-070.1 and Discharge from Hospice Program Policy 2-071.. This was reviewed and validated with the Administrator and interim DCPS.”

    Rule L0682. Standard-level.

The one inspection in the last three years
Inspections on record
DateVisitWhat the record says
Feb 12, 2026Reaccreditation inspection by The Joint Commission12 deficiencies cited

Is it certified?

  • Medicare-certified hospice since Feb 15, 2017.
  • Ownership: for-profit.
  • No deficiency or on record 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?

  • CMS hasn’t published nursing time from Medicare claims for this hospice.
  • Where its patients were cared for (Jan 1, 2024 to Dec 31, 2024): 80% at home, 20% in a skilled nursing facility.
Source:

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

Who owns it?

  • 2 owners or officers are people: Al Hamid Abraham (owns 5% or more directly, 100%); Al Hamid Abraham (managing employee (on the payroll)).
  • 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 gives no Hospice Care Index for this hospice.
Source:

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

How does it compare nearby?

  • Of the 27 hospices CMS’s data show serving patients in ZIP code 80112, where this hospice’s office is, the middle number of deficiencies cited in the last three years was 5; this one had 12.
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 28, 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.