Hearth Record

Crisp Regional Hospice and Palliative Care

A hospice in Cordele, Georgia 31015

202 E 4th Avenue, Cordele, Georgia 31015. (229) 273-6282.

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 14 deficiencies in 2 months of the last 36. Last cited Apr 2025. Most serious: Condition-level. Every month

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

What these words mean4
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.
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.

What did inspectors find?

14 deficiencies cited in the last three years

The middle of the 7 hospices serving ZIP code 31015 had 1.

The last inspection on record was on Apr 15, 2025: a follow-up inspection by The Joint Commission.

1 deficiency 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

14 deficiencies in 2 months of the last 36. Last cited Apr 2025. Most serious: Condition-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.

Apr 15, 2025: follow-up inspection by The Joint Commission2 deficiencies
  • Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c))

    “Observed in Individual Tracer. In 1 of 5 patient records reviewed, the hospice plan of care did not reflect required goals based on the assessement. RR#2 NHV developed 3+ pitting edema of the right leg and the care plan did not reflect any goals and or interventions to address the identified problem. This observation was discussed with the director.”

    Rule L0545. Standard-level.

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

    “Observed in Record Review. In 2 of 5 patient records reviewed, the hospice plan of care did not comprehensively reflect all orders required to address the patients’ needs. RR#3 NHV had a neck wound that required packing and had purulent drainage. A review of the care plan and interim orders did not reflect the actual frequency of the wound care. The RN was visiting this patient 3x per week. RR#1 had a volunteer and there were no orders for the volunteer visits. This observation was discussed with the director.”

    Rule L0546. Standard-level.

Mar 6, 2025: reaccreditation inspection by The Joint Commission12 deficiencies
  • Governing body and administrator (42 CFR 418.100(b))

    “Observed in Tracer Activities. There was no evidence that the governing body and leadership had established requirements to support patient care treatment and services as evidenced by a condition level finding at 418.78 and 418.56 as significant issues with care planning, physician orders and there were instances of not following physician orders as per policy.”

    Rule L0651. Condition-level.

  • Content of comprehensive assessment (42 CFR 418.54(c)(8))

    The inspectors’ words, 114 words

    “Observed in Record Review. In 14 of 14 patient records reviewed, it was noted that there was no documentation of the need for volunteer services to offer support or respite to the patient, family, or other caregivers. For example, in records HOSHV#1 through #4 and HOSNHV#1 through #10 there was no documentation of the need for volunteer services on initial assessment or at reassessment. In records HO RRNHV#2 and #9 there was no documentation of the patient’s psychosocial status, such as family relationships, social history, the source and adequacy of environmental and other resources, coping mechanisms, and the patient’s and family’s reactions to illness. This was discussed with the Director and Clinical Coordinator present.”

    Rule L0532. Standard-level.

  • Update of comprehensive assessment (42 CFR 418.54(d))

    The inspectors’ words, 137 words

    “Observed in Record Review. In 14 of 14 patient records reviewed, it was noted that the interdisciplinary group did not include a social worker, marriage and family therapist or mental health counselor. For example in records HOSHV#1 to #4 and HOSNHV#1 to #10 there was no documentation of a social worker, marriage and family therapist or mental health counselor attending IDG as a result the comprehensive assessment collaboration was not complete. .Upon discussion with the Director, Quality nurse and Clinical Coordinator the full time social worker had left suddenly and unexpectedly 2 months ago and the team had been working with a PRN MSW who did not attend IDG or provide regular patient care. The prn MSW was available only for emergency situations. Leadership stated that there is a new MSW who will be starting next week.”

    Rule L0533. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 127 words

    “Observed in Record Review. In 14 of 14 patient records reviewed, it was noted that the interdisciplinary group did not include a social worker, marriage and family therapist or mental health counselor. For example in records HOSHV#1 to #4 and HOSNHV#1 to #10 there was no documentation of a social worker, marriage and family therapist or mental health counselor attending IDG. Upon discussion with the Director, Quality nurse and Clinical Coordinator the full time social worker had left suddenly and unexpectedly 2 months ago and the team had been working with a PRN MSW who did not attend IDG or provide regular patient care. The prn MSW was available only for emergency situations. Leadership stated that there is a new MSW who will be starting next week.”

    Rule L0541. Standard-level.

  • Plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(b ))

    The inspectors’ words, 203 words

    “Observed in Record Review. In 13 of 14 patient records reviewed, it was noted that the written plan of care was not based on the patient’s individualized goals and the time frames, settings and services required to meet the goals. For example, the goals Patient achieves feelings of spiritual comfort. and Survivor will be knowledge of bereavement services and when needed, will use available support to achieve a more positive grief outcome.. were not individualized it was stated verbatim in multiple records. In record HOSRRHV#1 and HOSRRNHV#5 the plan of cares included a goal for emergency evacuation however the interventions were for fall risk. In record HOSHV#3 the patient had a G-tube that he received bolus feedings and medications through, However there were no goals or interventions related to the G-tube since admission over 3 months prior and no goals or interventions were documented when the patient was placed in a SNF for respite care 4 days ago. In record HOSRRHV#4 there were 3 respiratory goals started on admission in 2022, for example Patient/cg demonstrate proper administration of oxygen. The goals had not been updated and based on nurse notes appeared to have been achieved. This was discussed with the Clinical Coordinator present.”

    Rule L0543. Standard-level.

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

    “Observed in Record Review. In 1 of 14 patient records reviewed, it was noted that the plan of care did not include all treatment necessary to meet the patient’s needs. For example, in record HOSRRHV#4 the POC orders included foley catheter 2 flushes(20ml) but no indication of what to flush the catheter with. This was confirmed with the Clinical Coordinator present.”

    Rule L0549. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 145 words

    “Observed in Record Review. In 14 of 14 patient records reviewed, it was noted that the interdisciplinary group did not include a social worker, marriage and family therapist or mental health counselor. For example in records HOSHV#1 to #4 and HOSNHV#1 to #10 there was no documentation of a social worker, marriage and family therapist or mental health counselor attending IDG. Upon discussion with the Director, Quality nurse and Clinical Coordinator the full time social worker had left suddenly and unexpectedly 2 months ago and the team had been working with a PRN MSW who did not attend IDG or provide review and revision of the plan of care as the patient’s condition required, but no less frequently than every 15 days. The prn MSW was available only for emergency situations. Leadership stated that there is a new MSW who will be starting next week.”

    Rule L0552. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 180 words

    “Observed in Record Review. During review of a bereavement care plan with the chaplain/bereavement coordinator, the hospice pharmacy surveyor noted that two sisters were having a disagreement over the key elements which were involved in grieving the loss of their mother. Although the chaplain was aware this was occurring, he did not identify any documented interventions in the documented bereavement plan of care to improve this problem. This was reviewed with the chaplain at thentime of the survey. Observed in Record Review. During review of a bereavement care plan with the chaplain/bereavement coordinator, the hospice pharmacy surveyor noted that this patient’s bereavement care plan included the required telephone calls and mailings; however this record did not include that the calls were being made at the specified intervals. The chaplain indicated a call was probably last made to the bereaved in Dec 2024 with no documentation found in the record that this occurred or whether there was a connection made or what timeframe for a callback was planned. This issue was reviewed with the chaplain at the time of the survey.”

    Rule L0596. Standard-level.

  • Recruiting and retaining (42 CFR 418.78(c))

    “Observed in Tracer Activities. During a review of the volunteer program with the new current volunteer coordinator, the interim volunteer coordinator and the hospice director, the hospice pharmacy surveyor noted that documentation of recruitment and retention activities was not available for review for all of 2023 and in 2024 only for the first quarter and resumed the first quarter of 2025.”

    Rule L0645. Standard-level.

  • Cost saving (42 CFR 418.78(d)(3))

    “Observed in Tracer Activities. During a review of the volunteer hours presented, the hospice pharmacist surveyor noted that the organization had not accurately documented the estimated cost savings for 2023 and 2024 as they had not met the required 5% of total patient care hours that were provided by volunteers. Estimated cost savings for 2023 was $1990 and for 2024 was $8040. This issue was validated with the volunteer coordinator and the director at the time of the survey.”

    Rule L0646. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 143 words

    “Observed in Document Review. The volunteers must provide 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 staff. The hospice must maintain records on the use of volunteers for patient care and administrative services, including the type of services and time worked. The Hospice pharmacy surveyor observed in tracer activities and during a discussion with the volunteer coordinator and review of available records prepared in 2024, documentation of direct patient care and administrative hours to equal 1.31% of the total patient care hours of all paid employees in 2023. The amount of savings achieved for 2024 was documented to be at 1.96 %,. The validation of this information was reviewed with the volunteer coordinator and director at the time of the survey”

    Rule L0647. Standard-level.

  • Training (42 CFR 418.100(g)(3))

    “Observed in HR File Review. In 2 of 2 HR files reviewed, for the only two volunteers currently providing services to hospice patients, the hospice pharmacy surveyor noted that initial competencies was not a part of the orientation process. Both of these volunteers came on board in the summer of 2023, This omission was validated with the hospice director and clinical coordinator at the time of the survey.”

    Rule L0663. Standard-level.

All 2 inspections in the last three years
Inspections on record
DateVisitWhat the record says
Apr 15, 2025Follow-up inspection by The Joint Commission2 deficiencies cited
Mar 6, 2025Reaccreditation inspection by The Joint Commission12 deficiencies cited

Is it certified?

  • Medicare-certified hospice since Mar 21, 1996.
  • Ownership: other.
  • Cited at in the last three years: it didn’t meet a whole condition of Medicare’s rules.
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): 12.7 nurse care minutes per routine home care day, 8.4% of skilled nursing minutes at weekends and a visit near death for 100% of patients who died.
  • Where its patients were cared for (Jan 1, 2024 to Dec 31, 2024): 55% at home, 24% in assisted living, 19% in a nursing facility, 2% in a hospital.
Source:

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

Staffing measures
MeasureThis provider
Nurse care minutes per routine home care day12.7 min
Skilled nursing minutes at weekends8.4%
Visits near death100.0% of patients who died

Who owns it?

  • 7 owners or officers are people: Steven L. Gautney (corporate officer, 100%); Jessica Carter (corporate officer, 50%); Jessica Carter (managing employee (on the payroll), 50%); Jessica Carter (runs it (operational or managerial control), 50%); Mary Purvis (managing employee (under contract)); Russ Daniel Hopper (managing employee (under contract)); Steven L. Gautney (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?

  • Family caregivers rate it 5 of 5 in CMS’s survey (Oct 1, 2023 to Sep 30, 2025): 95% rated it 9 or 10 out of 10, and 95% would definitely recommend it.
  • CMS’s Hospice Care Index: 9 of 10 (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024).
  • 96.23% of patients were assessed on all seven of CMS’s measures at the start of care (Oct 1, 2024 to Sep 30, 2025); 89.7% 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 55 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 threshold9 of 10

How does it compare nearby?

  • Of the 7 hospices CMS’s data show serving patients in ZIP code 31015, where this hospice’s office is, the middle number of deficiencies cited in the last three years was 1; 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.

The 7 hospices CMS lists serving ZIP code 31015
PlaceDeficiencies, 3 years
Crisp Regional Hospice and Palliative Care This hospice14
Pruitthealth Hospice-Cordele0
Phoebe Hospice1
Phoebe Sumter Hospice0
Gentiva15
Georgia Hospice Care0
Eternal Faith Hospice and Palliative Care3

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.