Hearth Record

Heart N Home Hospice & Palliative Care

A hospice in Fruitland, Idaho 83619

1104 Vermont Ave, Fruitland, Idaho 83619. (208) 452-2663.

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 5 deficiencies in 1 month of the last 36. Last cited Aug 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?

5 deficiencies cited in the last three years

The middle of the 14 hospices serving ZIP code 83619 had 5.

The last inspection on record was on May 20, 2026: a complaint inspection by the state.

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

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

5 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.

Aug 22, 2024: recertification inspection by the state5 deficiencies
  • Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c))

    The inspectors’ words, 637 words

    “Based on policy review, record review, and staff interview, it was determined the agency failed to ensure POCs were individualized for each specific patient for 2 of 19 patients (Patients #2 & #6) whose records were reviewed. This resulted in no interventions or goals related to the terminal illness addressed on patient’s POC and had the potential to affect all patients receiving services from the agency. Findings include: 3. Patient #8 was a 70-year-old female admitted to hospice on 8/16/24 with a primary diagnosis of moderate protein calorie malnutrition. She received SN, HHA, Chaplain and SW services. Her medical record, including the POC, was reviewed. A surveyor observational visit was conducted on 8/19/24 with the SW and this patient in the ALF. Patient #8s POC, dated 8/16/24, included the primary diagnosis of moderate protein calorie malnutrition but did not include a nutrition-based intervention or goal. The Regional Vice President (RVP)of the Hospice was interviewed on 8/22/24 at 10:00 AM, and Patient #8s medical record was reviewed in her presence. The RVP confirmed there were no interventions or goals created to address the primary diagnosis in the Patient #8s POC. The Agency failed to ensure that Patient #8s POC was comprehensive and addressed patients primary diagnosis. An agency policy titled, “;INITIAL & COMPREHENSIVE ADMISSION ASSESSMENT & PLAN OF CARE,” revised 4/01/22 stated, “;The purpose of the initial assessment visit will be to evaluate the patient’s physica4 psychosocia4 and emotional states related to the terminal illness and related conditions and to determine the patient’s immediate care and support needs. The information gathered in the initial assessment will be developed immediately into an initial plan of care.” This policy was not followed. Examples include: 1. Patient #2 was a 73 year old female admitted to the agency on 7/05/24 with a terminal diagnosis of “;nonspecific abnormal finding of lung field.” She had a mass in her left lung. She received SN, MSW, HHA, Chaplain, and volunteer services. Her record for the certification period 7/05/24 to 10/02/24 was reviewed. Patient #2s record included a POC that was completed on the SOC on 7/05/24. Orders for discipline and goals included generic hospice items including but not limited to pain reduction, education on pain scale, instructions on how to use medications, understanding of hospice services, and education on the hospice philosophy. There were no interventions or goals on the POC that were individualized to Patient #2s terminal diagnosis. Additionally, there were no respiratory interventions or goals related to Patient #2s terminal diagnosis of lung mass. The ED was interviewed on 8/21/24 beginning at 1:50 PM and Patient #2s POC was reviewed with her. She confirmed there were no respiratory interventions related to Patient #2s lung mass. She confirmed the POC was not individualized to Patient #2. 2. Patient #6 was a 58 year old female admitted to the agency on 7/05/24 with a primary diagnosis of dysphagia. Additional diagnoses included type 2 diabetes and alcohol abuse. She received SN, MSW, HHA, and chaplain services. Her record for the certification period 7/05/24 to 10/02/24 was reviewed. Patient #6s record included a POC that was completed on the SOC on 7/05/24. Orders for discipline and goals included generic hospice items including but not limited to pain scale, shortness of breath, vital sign assessment, and medication understanding. There were no interventions or goals on the POC that were individualized to Patient #6s terminal diagnosis. Additionally, there were no interventions or goals related to Patient #6s terminal diagnosis of dysphagia. The ED was interviewed on 8/21/24 beginning at 1:00 PM and Patient #6s POC was reviewed with her. She confirmed there was no interventions or goals related to Patient #6s terminal diagnosis of dysphagia. She confirmed Patient #6s POC was not individualized to Patient #6. The agency failed to ensure POCs were individualized for each specific patient.”

    Rule L0545. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 400 words

    “Based on record review, and staff interview, it was determined the agency failed to ensure POCs included all interventions or goals necessary to manage symptoms for each specific patient for 1 of 19 patients (Patient #8) whose records was reviewed. This resulted in Patient #8’s POC not containing interventions or goals related to the identified symptoms. This had the potential to affect all patients receiving services from the agency. Findings include: . Patient #8 was a 70-year-old female admitted to hospice on 8/16/24 with a primary diagnosis of moderate protein calorie malnutrition. She received SN, HHA, Chaplain and SW services. Her medical record, including the POC, was reviewed. A surveyor observational visit was conducted on 8/19/24 with the SW and this patient in the ALF. Patient #8s medical record RN visits from 8/17/24 and 8/20/24. The visits documented a specific visual hallucination of a young boy in the Patient #8s bathroom. The MSWs visit on 8/19/24 included the same visual hallucination. The 8/19/24 notes included that the hallucinations were a concern for the patient. The medical recorded included, “;She was so fixed with the memory of the person in the mirror and with the young boy in her mind it was difficult to get other information.” Her medical record was reviewed. There was no documentation of intervention related to the hallucinations identified on any of the above visits to address these symptoms. The RVP of the hospice was interviewed on 8/22/24 at 10:00 AM and patient #8s medical record was reviewed in her presence. The RVP confirmed there were no interventions or goals created to address the hallucinations in the Patient #8s POC. Patient #8s POC, dated 8/16/24, documented included a primary diagnosis of moderate protein calorie malnutrition. RN visits on 8/17/24 and 8/20/24 completed by Hospice RNs did not include nutrition assessments. The medical record for both visits documented the field “;Was the patient nutritional status assessed” and the response “;No.” The subsequent field “;Why was the nutritional status not assessed?” had the response, “;Not appropriate at time of evaluation.” Patient #8s ongoing symptoms were not assessed. The Regional Vice President (RVP)of the Hospice was interviewed on 8/22/24 at 10:00 AM. The RVP confirmed nutrition assessments addressing primary diagnosis related symptoms were not completed during RN visits on 8/17/24 and 8/20/24. The Agency failed to ensure that Patient #8s health concerns and symptoms were addressed with interventions and assessments.”

    Rule L0546. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 220 words

    “Based on record review and interview the agency failed to ensure the plan of care included all services necessary for the palliation and management of the terminal illness and related conditions for one of 19 patients (Patient #11) whose records were reviewed. Patient #11 was a 83 year old female admitted to hospice on 2/27/24 with a primary diagnosis of Chronic Kidney Disease. Additional diagnosis include protein calorie malnutrition, and type 2 DM. She received SN, HHA, Chaplain and SW services. Her medical record, including the POC, was reviewed. Patient #11s plan of care included “;Caregiver to putnystatin [sic] [put nystatin] on BID until resolved.” Nystatin is an antibiotic ointment used for the management of skin infections and rashes. There was no other detail or specificity to this order. It was unclear where the nystatin was to be applied and no detail on what was to be resolved. The RVP was interviewed on 8/22/24 beginning at 9:30 AM, and Patient #11s medical record was reviewed in her presence. She confirmed there was no documentation Patient #11s Nystatin order was specific to include necessary details. She stated she knew Patient #11 had a rash on her groin, but she confirmed there should be more documentation related to the Nystatin. The hospice failed to specify patient order to include all relevant information.”

    Rule L0547. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 363 words

    “Based on record review and staff interview the agency failed to ensure the current and revised plan of care included updated goals and interventions or assessments for pain and symptoms for 2 of 19 patients (Patient #8 and #19) whose record was reviewed. This had the potential for needs to go unmet. 2. Patient #8s POC, dated 8/16/24, included a primary diagnosis of moderate protein calorie malnutrition. RN visits on 8/17/24 and 8/20/24 completed by Hospice RNs did not include nutritional assessments. The medical record for both visits included the field “;Was the patient nutritional status assessed” and the response “;No.” The subsequent field “;Why was the nutritional status not assessed?” documented the response, “;Not appropriate at time of evaluation.” It was unclear why a nutritional assessment was not completed. Patient #8s ongoing symptoms were not assessed. The RVP of the Hospice was interviewed on 8/22/24 at 10:00 AM. The RVP confirmed nutrition assessments addressing primary diagnosis related symptoms were not completed during RN visits on 8/17/24 and 8/20/24. The Agency failed to ensure that Patient #8s health concerns and symptoms were addressed with interventions and assessments. Patient #11 was a 83 year old female admitted to hospice on 2/27/24 with a primary diagnosis of Chronic Kidney Disease. Additional diagnosis include protein calorie malnutrition, and type 2 DM. She received SN, HHA, Chaplain and SW services. Her medical record, including the POC, was reviewed. Patient #11’s POC did not include updates to goals. Examples include: Patient #11s plan of care included, “;Patient pain [sic] will report pain at her comfort goal 4/10 or less through 3/22/24.” It was unclear what Patient #11s current measurable pain goal was after 3/22/24. Additionally, it was unclear why the current care plan, a document created on 6/13/24, included goals that had expired. The RVP was interviewed on 8/22/24 beginning at 9:30 AM, and Patient #11s medical record was reviewed in her presence. She stated she did not know why the current care plan showed goal that had expired. She stated she could not find documentation regarding Patient #11s updated pain goal. The agency failed to include Patient #11s POC included updated goals for the management of pain.”

    Rule L0553. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 197 words

    “Based on review of clinical record, and staff interview, it was determined that the hospice failed to follow orders outlilned on the plan of care for one of 19 patients (Patient #11) whose record was reviewed. Patient #11 was a 83 year old female admitted to hospice on 2/27/24 with a primary diagnosis of Chronic Kidney Disease. Additional diagnosis include protein calorie malnutrition, and type 2 DM. She received SN, HHA, Chaplain and SW services. Her medical record, including the POC, was reviewed. Patient #11s comprehensive care plan report included, “;Using aseptic technique, insert 16Fr 30ml Balloon catheter to continuous bedside drainage related to comfort. Catheter to be changed every 3 months and PRN per complications.” The order was dated at Patient #11s start of care and was on her current care plan for her current certification period. There was no documentation in Patient #11s medical record of her catheter being changed. The RVP was interviewed on 8/22/24 beginning at 9:30 AM, and Patient #11s medical record was reviewed in her presence. She confirmed there was no documentation Patient #11s catheter was changed as ordered. The hospice failed to provide services as order on Patient #11s POC.”

    Rule L0555. Standard-level.

All 2 inspections in the last three years
Inspections on record
DateVisitWhat the record says
May 20, 2026Complaint inspection by the stateNo deficiencies cited
Aug 22, 2024Recertification inspection by the state5 deficiencies cited

Is it certified?

  • Medicare-certified hospice since Jun 17, 2004.
  • Ownership: other.
  • 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): 12.3 nurse care minutes per routine home care day, 11.1% of skilled nursing minutes at weekends and a visit near death for 94.5% of patients who died.
  • Where its patients were cared for (Jan 1, 2024 to Dec 31, 2024): 60% at home, 37% in assisted living, 1% in a nursing facility, 2% in a skilled nursing facility, 1% elsewhere.
Source:

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

Staffing measures
MeasureThis provider
Nurse care minutes per routine home care day12.3 min
Skilled nursing minutes at weekends11.1%
Visits near death94.5% of patients who died

Who owns it?

  • Kambros, LLC owns 100% directly since Jul 1, 2021.
  • 10 owners or officers are people: Marcus Macip (corporate officer); Kimberly Seymour (corporate officer, 0%); Kimberly Seymour (managing employee (on the payroll), 0%); Joni Babineaux (corporate officer, 0%); Paul C Gering (managing employee (under contract), 0%); Amanda Chapman (managing employee (on the payroll)); Wendy Daigle (corporate director, 0%); Lily A Conant-Burkett (managing employee (on the payroll), 0%); Joshua Lee Proffitt (corporate officer); Amy Cormier (corporate director, 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
Unitedhealth Group IncorporatedOwns 5% or more through other companies100%Feb 22, 2023
Kambros, LLCOwns 5% or more directly100%Jul 1, 2021
LHC Group Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies100%Jul 1, 2021
Idaho Health Care Group, LLCOwns 5% or more through other companies100%Jul 1, 2021

What do families say?

  • Family caregivers rate it 4 of 5 in CMS’s survey (Oct 1, 2023 to Sep 30, 2025): 82% rated it 9 or 10 out of 10, and 89% would definitely recommend it.
  • CMS’s Hospice Care Index: 10 of 10 (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024).
  • 99.49% of patients were assessed on all seven of CMS’s measures at the start of care (Oct 1, 2024 to Sep 30, 2025); 75.3% 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 54 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 14 hospices CMS’s data show serving patients in ZIP code 83619, where this hospice’s office is, the middle number of deficiencies cited in the last three years was 5; this one had 5.
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.