Hearth Record

Gentiva I

A hospice in Pensacola, Florida 32504

7282 Plantation Rd, Ste 302, Pensacola, Florida 32504. (704) 662-1761.

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 14 deficiencies in 1 month of the last 36. Last cited Jun 2024. Most serious: Standard-level. Every month

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?

14 deficiencies cited in the last three years

The middle of the 6 hospices serving ZIP code 32504 had 8.

The last inspection on record was on Jun 6, 2024: a reaccreditation inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care.

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

14 deficiencies in 1 month of the last 36. Last cited Jun 2024. Most serious: Standard-level. The last 3 years, to Oct 27, 2026.

14 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.

Jun 6, 2024: reaccreditation inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care14 deficiencies
  • Timeframe for completion of assessment (42 CFR 418.54(b))

    “Upon patient record review 1 of 23 (Patient #1) 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 #1: The patient was admitted on 3/18/24. There is not evidence the spiritual assessment was completed until 3/25/24 which is greater that the 5 day requirement.”

    Rule L0523. Standard-level.

  • Content of comprehensive assessment (42 CFR 418.54(c)(6))

    The inspectors’ words, 291 words

    “Upon patient record review, 5 of 23 (Patient #2, #3, #4, #5, #9) did not have evidence in the patient record that a review was completed of all prescription and non-prescription medications, including herbal remedies that could affect drug therapy. Patient #2: The record indicated an order on 10/18/23, Aspercreme 4% topical apply daily as needed for pain. The order did not identify a specific location. In addition, an order on 10/18/23, Ketoconazole 2% as needed per instruction. The record did not include a frequency. In addition, there were a duplicate medications, on 10/18/23 Imodium AD 2mg., one daily as needed for diarrhea and on 4/16/24 Imodium AD 2mg. one q 4 hours as needed for diarrhea. Also, an order Monistat 7% vaginal cream 2 times daily for 7 days. The medication remains on the medication list. In addition, 5/29/24 the nurse documented the PCP prescribed Nystatin powder. There was no evidence that Nystatin was on the medication profile. (All corrected on site.) Patient #3: The record indicated multiple medications listed the medication route as “cheek of mouth”. These medications included, but were not limited to, Aleve, Amlodipine, Century vitamin, etc. Corrected on site. Patient #4: The record indicated multiple medications listed the medication route as “cheek of mouth”. These medications included, but were not limited to, Senna, Spironolactone and Acetaminophen. Corrected on site. Patient #5: The record indicated an order on 3/24/24, ASA 81mg., chew and swallow 4 tablets daily for 60 days. The medication remains on the medication record. Corrected on site. Patient #9, the agency medication record did not list lactulose that was on the facility medication profile. In addition, the facility medication record did not list benzonatate and bisacodyl which were listed on the agency medication record.”

    Rule L0530. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 337 words

    “Upon patient record review, 8 of 23 (Patient #1, #3, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #18) there was no 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 #1: The record indicated the patient was admitted on 3/18/24. The Bereavement assessment was completed on 3/25/24, which is greater than the five day requirement. In addition, the bereavement assessment was completed on the daughter only. The patient lives with her spouse who is involved in her care. There was not evidence there was a bereavement assessment completed on the spouse. Corrected on site. Patient #3: The bereavement assessment was completed for the daughter only. The patient lives with his spouse. There was not evidence there was a bereavement assessment completed for the spouse. Corrected on site. Patient #6: The record indicated the patient was admitted on 3/21/24. The Bereavement assessment was completed on 3/27/24, which is greater than the five day requirement. Patient #7: The record indicated the patient was admitted on 4/21/24. The Bereavement assessment was completed on 4/28/24, which is greater than the five day requirement. Patient #8: The record indicated the patient was admitted on 1/29/24. The Bereavement assessment was completed on 2/5/24, which is greater than the five day requirement. Patient #9: The record indicated the patient was admitted on 4/3/24. There was no evidence in the record that the Bereavement assessment was completed. Patient #10: The record indicated the patient was admitted on 2/11/23. The Bereavement assessment was completed on 2/221/23, which is greater than the 5 day requirement. Patient #18: The record indicated the patient was admitted on 8/22/23. The Bereavement assessment was completed on 9/1/23 which is greater than the 5 day requirement.”

    Rule L0531. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 106 words

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 23 (Patient #13) 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 #13: The medication record indicated the patient was on Plavix 75 mg daily and ASA 81 mg daily. There was no evidence of bleeding precautions on the plan of care.”

    Rule L0545. Standard-level.

  • Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(2))

    The inspectors’ words, 150 words

    “Upon patient record review, 2 of 23 (Patient #13, #17) did not have evidence the plan of care must includes all services necessary for the palliation and management of the terminal illness and related conditions, including the following: • A detailed statement of the scope and frequency of services necessary to meet the specific patient and family needs • The IDG demonstrates a proactive approach in developing each patient’s plan of care by planning ahead for anticipated patient changes and needs. Decisions should reflect the patient/family preferences rather than be solely a response to a crisis. Patient #13: The record indicated, the initial plan of care included MS and SC prn visits, this is not a detailed frequency specific to meet patient/family needs. Patient #17: The record indicated, the initial plan of care included MS and SC prn visits, this is not a detailed frequency specific to meet patient/family needs.”

    Rule L0547. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 184 words

    “Upon patient record review, 4 of 23 (Patient #2, #3, #4, #9) 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 #2: The record indicates an order on 10/18/23, Asper creme 4% topical apply daily as needed for pain. The order did not identify a specific location. In addition, an order on 10/18/23, Ketoconazole 2% as needed per instruction. In addition, 5/29/24 the nurse documented the PCP prescribed Nystatin powder. There was no order for Nystatin. (All corrected on site.) Patient #3: The record indicates multiple medications listed the medication route as “cheek of mouth”. These medications included, but were not limited to, Aleve, Amlodipine, Century vitamin, etc. Corrected on site. Patient #4: The record indicates multiple medications listed the medication route as “cheek of mouth”. These medications included, but were not limited to, Senna, Spironolactone and Acetaminophen. Corrected on site Patient #9: Lactulose that was on the facility medication profile there was not evidence of a lactulose order in the hospice record.”

    Rule L0549. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 186 words

    “Upon client record review, 2 of 23 (Patient #2,#12) did not have evidence that the IDG ensures that the care and services are provided in accordance with the plan of care. Patient #2: The record indicated on the Initial Plan of Care a request for Volunteer evaluation. There is no evidence a Volunteer evaluation was completed. In addition, the medical record indicates O2 at 2L via NC continuously. The nursing document indicated the patient was on room air during most visits. There was no evidence in the chart that the order was revised or discontinued. Patient #12: The record indicates skilled nurse frequency 2 times a week. For the week of 5/19 to 5/25/24 there was only one visit on 5/22/24. Patient #13: The record indicated on 5/10/24 an order for O2 1-2 L as needed. The medical record indicates the patient was on O2 at 2.5 L via NC . There was not an order for O2 2.5 L. In addition, the record indicates skilled nurse frequency 2 times a week. For the week of 5/12 to 5/18/24 there was only one visit on 5/12/24.”

    Rule L0555. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 283 words

    “Upon patient record review, 4 of 23 (Patient #2, #13, #14, #16) 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 #2: The record indicated the HHA plan of care identified nail care “as needed” and shampoo “as needed”. In addition, the patient’s CTI indicated that the patient was a high fall risk and there was no evidence of fall precautions. The medication record indicates the patient was on Eliquis with no evidence of bleeding precautions and the patient was on O2 with no evidence of O2 precautions. Precautions corrected on site. Patient #13: The medication record indicated the patient was on Plavix and ASA with no evidence of bleeding precautions and the patient was on O2 with no evidence of O2 precautions. Corrected on site. Patient #14: The record indicated the patient had a fall on 4/8/24. There was no evidence of fall precautions. Corrected on site. Patient #16: The medication record indicated, the patient was on O2 2-4 L continuously. The HHA plan of care did not include O2 precautions. Corrected on site.”

    Rule L0625. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 295 words

    “Upon patient record review 7 of 23 (Patient #7, #8, #10, #11, #15, #16, #17) 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 #7: The HHA plan of care indicated linen change each visit. On 5/16/24, the HHA documented, , “per frequency not needed this visit”. In addition, the HHA plan of care indicated nail care: weekly. On 5/14/24 and 5/16/24 the HHA completed nail care each visit. Patient #8: On 5/14/24, the HHA documented for Service: Bathing (shower): completed: Y. Note: bed bath. There was no evidence found in the record to indicate the HHA contacted the nurse. Patient#11: The HHA plan of care indicated linen change and hair care weekly. On 4/9 and 4/12/24, the HHA documented, linen change and hair care each visit. In addition, skin care was to be each visit. On 5/31/24, the HHA documented “completed: no, note: per frequency not needed this visit”. Patient #13: The HHA plan of care indicated linen change and hair care each visit. On 5/6/24, the HHA documented “completed: no, note: per frequency not needed this visit”. Patient #15: The HHA plan of care indicated shampoo each visit. On 5/16/24, the HHA documented, shampoo completed: no “per frequency not needed this visit”. Patient #16: The HHA plan of care indicated shampoo each visit. On 5/15/24, the HHA documented, shampoo completed: no “per frequency not needed this visit”. Patient #17: The HHA plan of care indicated shampoo each visit. On 6/5/24, the HHA documented, shampoo completed: no “per frequency not needed this visit”.”

    Rule L0626. Standard-level.

  • Supervision of hospice aides (42 CFR 418.76(h)(1))

    The inspectors’ words, 91 words

    “Upon patient record review 1 of 23 (Patient #13) did not have evidence documentation in the patient record that a Registered Nurse made an on-site visit to the patient’s home no less frequently than every 14 days to assess the quality of care and services provided by the hospice aide and to ensure that services ordered by the hospice interdisciplinary group meet the patient’s needs. Patient #13: The record indicated the HHA visited on 4/25/24. There was not a supervisory visit by the RN until 5/15/24 outside the 14 day frequency.”

    Rule L0629. Standard-level.

  • Level of activity (42 CFR 418.78(e))

    “Upon observation, there was no evidence the annual report documents the use of volunteers providing day to day administrative and/or direct patient care services in an amount that, at a minimum, equals 5 percent of the total patient care hours of all paid hospice employees and contract personnel. The annual report of volunteer usage for the year 2023 was documented as 3.4%.”

    Rule L0647. Standard-level.

  • Training (42 CFR 418.100(g)(1))

    “Upon personnel record review, 1 of 14 (Personnel #8 ) did not have evidence the hospice employees and contract employees have received orientation on the hospice philosophy. Personnel #8: There was not evidence in the record of orientation to the hospice philosophy. Hospice confirmed recent use of the physical therapist.”

    Rule L0661. Standard-level.

  • Content (42 CFR 418.104(a)(6))

    “Upon patient client record review, 1 of 23 (Patient #13) did not have evidence that each patient record contains Advance Directives. Patient #13: The record indicated the patient had a DNR document. There was not a copy of the DNR in the chart.”

    Rule L0677. Standard-level.

  • Authentication (42 CFR 418.104(b))

    The inspectors’ words, 132 words

    “Upon patient client record review, 1 of 23 (Patient #18) 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 #18: The record indicated an EOB signed electronically identified the patient wished to receive the Patient notification of hospice non-covered items, services and drugs. The paper copy of the EOB signed on the same day, indicated he did not wish to receive the patient notification of hospice non-covered items, services and drugs. It could not be determined if the patient wished to receive or did not wish to receive this document.”

    Rule L0679. Standard-level.

The one inspection in the last three years
Inspections on record
DateVisitWhat the record says
Jun 6, 2024Reaccreditation inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care14 deficiencies cited

Is it certified?

  • Medicare-certified hospice since Sep 22, 2009.
  • 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?

  • From Medicare claims (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024): 11.9 nurse care minutes per routine home care day, 6.3% of skilled nursing minutes at weekends and a visit near death for 93.8% of patients who died.
  • Where its patients were cared for (Jan 1, 2024 to Dec 31, 2024): 49% at home, 33% in assisted living, 16% in a nursing facility, 2% in a skilled nursing facility.
Source:

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

Staffing measures
MeasureThis provider
Nurse care minutes per routine home care day11.9 min
Skilled nursing minutes at weekends6.3%
Visits near death93.8% of patients who died

Who owns it?

  • Regency Healthcare Holdings LLC owns 100% directly since Jun 6, 2014; Regency Healthcare Group LLC owns 100% directly since Nov 9, 2011.
  • Regency Healthcare Group LLC runs it.
  • 6 owners or officers are people: Ronald C Lazas (corporate officer, 0%); David Robinson Arnold (corporate officer, 0%); Thomas Joseph Dolan (corporate officer, 0%); David Allen Causby (corporate officer, 0%); Janet L Combs (corporate officer, 0%); Anne Mosher (managing employee (on the payroll), 0%).
  • 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.

Organisations CMS lists
OrganisationRoleShareSince
Ch Services Midco Holdings Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies100%Feb 5, 2015
Curo Health Services Holdings, Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies100%Nov 9, 2011
Charlotte Midco, LLCOwns 5% or more through other companies100%Aug 11, 2022
Falcon Hospice, LPOwns 5% or more through other companies100%Aug 11, 2022
Regency Healthcare Holdings LLCOwns 5% or more directly100%Jun 6, 2014
Charlotte Buyer, Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies100%Jul 11, 2018
Curo Health Services LLCOwns 5% or more through other companies100%Jun 6, 2014
Kah Hospice Company, Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies100%Mar 1, 2022
Regency Healthcare Group LLCOwns 5% or more directly100%Nov 9, 2011
Ch Services Group Holdings Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies100%Feb 5, 2015
Ch Services Holdings Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies100%Feb 5, 2015
Cd&r Falcon Holdings, LPOwns 5% or more through other companies60%Aug 11, 2022
Kentucky Homecare Parent Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies40%Aug 11, 2022
Kentucky Homecare Holdings, Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies40%Aug 11, 2022
Humana Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies40%Aug 11, 2022
Centerwell Health Services Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies40%Aug 11, 2022
Regency Healthcare Group LLCRuns it (operational or managerial control)Apr 15, 2011

What do families say?

  • Family caregivers rate it 3 of 5 in CMS’s survey (Oct 1, 2023 to Sep 30, 2025): 80% rated it 9 or 10 out of 10, and 81% would definitely recommend it.
  • CMS’s Hospice Care Index: 10 of 10 (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024).
  • 97.86% of patients were assessed on all seven of CMS’s measures at the start of care (Oct 1, 2024 to Sep 30, 2025); 65.5% 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 53 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 threshold10 of 10

How does it compare nearby?

  • Of the 6 hospices CMS’s data show serving patients in ZIP code 32504, where this hospice’s office is, the middle number of deficiencies cited in the last three years was 8; this one had 14.
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.