Hearth Record

Gentiva

A hospice in Pittsburg, Kansas 66762

2307 South Tucker, Pittsburg, Kansas 66762. (620) 231-8000.

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 1 month of the last 36. Last cited Apr 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 7 hospices serving ZIP code 66762 had 9.

The last inspection on record was on Apr 17, 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 Apr 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.

Apr 17, 2024: reaccreditation inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care14 deficiencies
  • EP Testing Requirements (42 CFR 418.113(d)(2))

    “Upon observation, there was no evidence the agency has conducted exercises to test the emergency plan every two years. There was not evidence of participation in a full-scale exercise that is community-based every two years.”

    Rule E0039. Standard-level.

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

    “Upon patient record review 1 of 19 records (Patient #13) did not have evidence in the patient record that the comprehensive assessment identifies the 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. There was not evidence of a spiritual assessment.”

    Rule L0524. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 327 words

    “Upon patient record review, 6 of 19 records (Patient #2,#6,#7,#8,#9,#13) 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. This review includes, but is not limited to: • Effectiveness of drug therapy • Drug side effects • Actual or potential drug interactions • Duplicate drug therapy • Drug therapy currently associated with laboratory monitoring Patient #2: The medication profile contained Pepto Bismol 262mg/15ml, 30 cc Q30 min (not to exceed 240 ml/24h), and Pepto Bismol 262mg/15ml, administer 5cc. Corrected on site. Patient #6: The medication profile contained Nystatin 100,000u topical cream, thin layer to affected area BID prn. There was not evidence of a specific location. Corrected on site. Patient #7: The record contained 2 orders for Fentanyl: One dated 4/22/23 for Fentanyl 100mg patch with a frequency of q8h and another dated 3/12/24 for Fentanyl 50mg patch every 72 hours. Corrected on site. Patient #8: The hospice medication profile contained Colace. There was not evidence that this medication was on the MAR at the facility. Patient #9: Hyoscyamine was on the hospice medication profile. There was not evidence that this was on the MAR at the facility. And TUMS was on the facility MAR but there was not evidence that this was on the medication profile at the hospice. Patient #13: The medication profile contained Diclofenac 1% topical gel 4x daily prn to affected area without evidence of a specific location. Corrected on site Also Lidocaine Plus 4% topical cream q4h prn to affected area without evidence of a specific location. Corrected on site. And, Silvadene 1% topical TID to affected area without evidence of a specific location. Corrected on site. In addition, Fentanyl 100mg q72h dated 11/3/23, Fentanyl 25mg q72 h (dated 11/26/24). Add to 100mg to total 125mg, and Fentanyl 50mg q72h (dated 3/22/24) Add to 100mg and 25 mg to total 175mg. Corrected on site.”

    Rule L0530. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 149 words

    “Upon patient record review, 2 of 19 records (Patient #3,#8) did not have evidence in the patient record that the hospice has developed an individualized written plan of care that reflects 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 #3: The patient was admitted with a diagnosis of Parkinson’s. She was an extensive assist with all activities, had behavioral issues, hallucinations, and mostly not able to understand. She also had Alzheimer’s Disease. There was not evidence of a neuro care plan with goals and interventions. Corrected on site. Patient #8: The patient was admitted with a diagnosis of hemiplegia following cerebral infarct. There was not evidence of a neuro care plan with goals and interventions. Corrected on site.”

    Rule L0545. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 198 words

    “Upon patient record review, 3 of 19 records (Patient #3,#6,#13) did not have evidence the plan of care includes all services necessary for the palliation and management of the terminal illness and related conditions, including medications and treatments. Patient #3: The record contained an order for Acetaminophen 325mg tabs, 2 tads q4h prn. There was not evidence of a maximum allowable dose per 24 hours. Corrected on site. Patient #6: The record contained an order for Nystatin 100,000u topical cream, thin layer to affected area BID prn. There was not evidence of a specific location. Corrected on site. Patient #13: The record contained orders for Diclofenac 1% topical gel 4x daily prn to affected area without evidence of a specific location. Corrected on site. Also Lidocaine Plus 4% topical cream q4h prn to affected area without evidence of a specific location. Corrected on site. And, Silvadene 1% topical TID to affected area without evidence of a specific location. Corrected on site. In addition, Fentanyl 100mg q72h dated 11/3/23, Fentanyl 25mg q72 h (dated 11/26/24). Add to 100mg to total 125mg, and Fentanyl 50mg q72h (dated 3/22/24) Add to 100mg and 25 mg to total 175mg. Corrected on site.”

    Rule L0549. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 123 words

    “Upon patient record review, 2 of 19 records (Patient #1,#11) did not have evidence that a revised plan of care includes information from the patient’s updated comprehensive assessment and notes the patient’s progress towards outcome/goals from the plan of care. Patient #1: The record indicated that the patient had a fall, dated 3/23/24 and sustained a wound on his left buttock, left elbow and left knee. There was not evidence that a revised plan of care included information from the patient’s updated comprehensive assessment regarding wounds. Patient #11:The record indicated that the patient had developed wounds on her right outer foot (2/21/24) and on her left heel (4/8/24). There was not evidence of a care plan related to her wounds. Corrected on site.”

    Rule L0553. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 288 words

    “Upon client record review, 5 of 19 records (Patient #2,#3,#6,#10,#14) 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 visit frequency for the social worker was for an evaluation then 1 every 2m2, 1m1. The evaluation was conducted on 2/16/24 with subsequent routine visits on 3/18/24 and 4/1/24. In addition, the skilled nurse visit frequency was 6w1, 3w1, 2w11. The patient was admitted on 2/12/24, and visits were conducted on 2/12/24, 2/14/24, 2/15/24, and 2/17/24. Patient #3: The initial care plan indicated for an assessment by the volunteer coordinator. There was not evidence of this evaluation. In addition, the visit frequency for the spiritual care counselor was for an evaluation, then 2 every 2m2, 2m1. The evaluation was conducted on 1/29/24 with subsequent routine visits on 2/8/24, 2/22/24, 3/13/24 and 3/28/24. Also, the visit frequency for the social worker was for an evaluation, then 2 every 2m2, 2m2. The evaluation was conducted on 1/29/24 with subsequent routine visits on 2/6/24, 2/20/24, 3/5/24 and 3/19/24. Patient #6: The initial plan of care indicated for an assessment by the volunteer coordinator. There was not evidence of this assessment Patient #10: The initial plan of care indicated for an assessment by the volunteer coordinator. There was not evidence of this assessment Patient #14: The visit frequency for the spiritual care counselor was for an evaluation, then 1 every 2m2, 1m1. The evaluation was conducted on 12/28/23 with subsequent routine visits on 1/31/24, and 2/28/24. Also, the visit frequency for the social worker was for an evaluation, then 1 every 2m2, 1m2. The evaluation was conducted on 12/29/23 with subsequent routine visits on 1/19/24 and 2/7/24.”

    Rule L0555. Standard-level.

  • Prevention (42 CFR 418.60(a))

    “Upon observation, there was no evidence the hospice follows acceptable standards of practice to prevent the transmission of infections and communicable diseases, including standard precautions. Patient #9: The staff member was observed retrieving the blood pressure cuff from her bag. After using the cuff on the patient, she reached into her bag to retrieve more equipment without first sanitizing her hands.”

    Rule L0579. Standard-level.

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

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 19 records (Patient #13) did not have evidence in the patient record that hospice aide assignments and duties are: • Specific written patient care instructions for a hospice aide that 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 Patient #13: The aide plan of care indicated to perform light housekeeping without specifying what tasks include light housekeeping. Corrected on site.”

    Rule L0625. 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. Documentation revealed the percentage of volunteer usage for the year 2023 was 3.16%”

    Rule L0647. Standard-level.

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

    “Upon client record review, 1 of 19 records (Patient #15) 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 #15: There was not evidence that the discharge summary was sent to the attending physician”

    Rule L0683. Standard-level.

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

    “Upon client record review, 1 of 19 records (Patient #15) did not have evidence that the discharge summary includes all required information. Patient #15: There was not evidence of a summary of the patient’s stay, including treatments, symptoms and pain management. Corrected on site.”

    Rule L0684. Standard-level.

  • Hospice plan of care (42 CFR 418.112(d))

    The inspectors’ words, 206 words

    “Upon client record review, 3 of 19 records (Patient #5,#9,#11) did not have evidence that a written hospice plan of care is established and maintained in consultation with SNF/NF or ICF/IID representatives. All hospice care provided is in accordance with this hospice plan of care. Patient #5: The visit frequency for the spiritual care counselor was for an evaluation, then 2 every 2m2, 2m2. The evaluation was conducted on 12/28/23 with subsequent routine visits on 1/8/24, 1/22/24,2/1/24, 2/23/24, 3/6/24 and 3/18/24. Also, the visit frequency for the social worker was for an evaluation, then 2 every 2m2, 2m2. The evaluation was conducted on 12/29/23 with subsequent routine visits on 1/4/24, 2/1/24, 3/7/24. Patient #9: The visit frequency for the spiritual care counselor was for an evaluation, then 2 every 2m2, 2m. The evaluation was conducted on 1/22/24 with subsequent routine visits on 2/6/24, 2/20/24, 3/6/24 and 3/19/24. Also, the visit frequency for the social worker was for an evaluation, then 1 every 2m2, 1m2. The evaluation was conducted on 1/23/24 with subsequent routine visits on 2/2/24, 3/1/24, 4/1/24. Patient #11: The visit frequency for the social worker for the benefit period beginning 2/20/24 was 1 every 2m2, 1m1. Routine visits were conducted on 3/4/24 and 4/1/24.”

    Rule L0773. Standard-level.

  • Hospice plan of care (42 CFR 418.112(d)(1))

    The inspectors’ words, 133 words

    “Upon client record review, 1 of 19 records (Patient #11) did not have evidence that the hospice plan of care identifies the care and services that are needed and specifically identify which provider (nursing facility or hospice) is responsible for performing the respective functions that have been agreed upon and included in the hospice plan of care. Patient #11: The record indicated an wound order dated 4/8/24 for the left heel stage III wound to cleanse with wound cleanser, pat dry, apply betadine dampened gauze to wound base. Cover with super absorbent pad or ABD. Secure with kerlix and tape. Wound care to be performed by hospice nurse, facility nurse daily or prn soiling or damp. There was not evidence of which provider specifically was to provide the wound care. Corrected on site.”

    Rule L0774. Standard-level.

The one inspection in the last three years
Inspections on record
DateVisitWhat the record says
Apr 17, 2024Reaccreditation inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care14 deficiencies cited

Is it certified?

  • Medicare-certified hospice since Jun 22, 2006.
  • 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): 12.6 nurse care minutes per routine home care day, 7.6% of skilled nursing minutes at weekends and a visit near death for 95.4% of patients who died.
  • Where its patients were cared for (Jan 1, 2024 to Dec 31, 2024): 36% at home, 29% in assisted living, 1% in a nursing facility, 34% 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 day12.6 min
Skilled nursing minutes at weekends7.6%
Visits near death95.4% of patients who died

Who owns it?

  • Southerncare Holdings, Inc. owns 100% directly since Dec 1, 2011.
  • 7 owners or officers are people: Ronald C Lazas (corporate officer, 0%); David Robinson Arnold (corporate officer, 0%); David Robinson Arnold (runs it (operational or managerial control), 0%); Thomas Joseph Dolan (corporate officer, 0%); Kaley Warner (managing employee (on the payroll), 0%); David Allen Causby (corporate officer, 0%); Janet L Combs (corporate officer, 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
Ksoc Holdings, Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies100%Jun 6, 2014
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%Jun 6, 2014
Curo Hospice SC LLCOwns 5% or more through other companies100%Jun 6, 2014
Southerncare Holdings, Inc.Owns 5% or more directly100%Dec 1, 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
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%Aug 11, 2022
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

What do families say?

  • Family caregivers rate it 4 of 5 in CMS’s survey (Oct 1, 2023 to Sep 30, 2025): 81% 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).
  • 99.4% of patients were assessed on all seven of CMS’s measures at the start of care (Oct 1, 2024 to Sep 30, 2025); 81.8% 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 7 hospices CMS’s data show serving patients in ZIP code 66762, where this hospice’s office is, the middle number of deficiencies cited in the last three years was 9; 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 66762
PlaceDeficiencies, 3 years
Hospice Compassus-Southeast Kansas4
Gentiva This hospice14
Harry Hynes Memorial Hospice9
Gentiva11
Gentiva18
Integrity Home Care + Hospice4
Phoenix Home Care and Hospice7

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.