Hearth Record

Hospice Care of St Elizabeth Healthcare

A hospice in Edgewood, Kentucky 41017

483 South Loop Road, Edgewood, Kentucky 41017. (859) 301-4600.

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 9 deficiencies in 1 month of the last 36. Last cited Apr 2025. 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?

9 deficiencies cited in the last three years

The middle of the 6 hospices serving ZIP code 41017 had 7.

The last inspection on record was on Apr 4, 2025: 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

9 deficiencies in 1 month of the last 36. Last cited Apr 2025. Most serious: Standard-level. The last 3 years, to Oct 27, 2026.

9 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 4, 2025: reaccreditation inspection by The Joint Commission9 deficiencies
  • Rights of the patient (42 CFR 418.52(c)(4))

    “Observed in Individual Tracer. In 1 of 6 individual tracers, it was noted that the organization did not ensure that the Hospice Election and Consent Form(s) were completed as required. The organization did not ensure the patient’s right to choose an attending provider was implemented. For example, during a review of the consent in the medical record for RRHV#5, the options to choose an attending physician was not a part of the election statement or consent form. This observation was reviewed with the Administrator and Nurse Manager.”

    Rule L0515. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 117 words

    “Observed in Individual Tracer. In 3 of 6 individual tracers, the organization did not ensure that updated comprehensive assessments included progress towards desired outcomes. For example, a review of RRHV#1, revealed that since a goal statement related to choking was not established; the requirement to ensure the updated comprehensive assessment included the patient’s progress toward goals and outcomes related to choking was not documented.Example #2: A review of RRHV#2, and RRHV#3, revealed that since a goal statement related to falls prevention was not established, the requirement to ensure the updated comprehensive assessment included the patient’s progress toward goals and outcomes related to falls prevention was not documented. This observation was reviewed with the Administrator and Nurse Manager.”

    Rule L0533. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 966 words

    “Observed in Individual Tracer. In 6 of 6 individual tracers, it was noted that the organization did not ensure that the plan of care goals included outcome measures for specific care activities. For example, during a review of the medical record for RRHV#1, the following information was noted: The patient’s primary diagnosis was Respiratory Failure, unspecified. The plan of care problem statement was Patient has a terminal illness with a prognosis of six months or less. The goal statement for this problem was Patient will be well-palliated through end of life by management of pain, dyspnea, nausea/vomiting, constipation, and any other symptoms that may arise during Hospice care. The goal statement did not include a method to evaluate the response to care, treatment, and services related to the terminal illness diagnosis of Respiratory Failure, unspecified. The stated timeframe of ...through end of life... is not a realistic measurement to assess the implementation of problem interventions. In addition, during week 2 of the 1st benefit period, the clinician documented that the patient was experiencing a new symptom of choking. The plan of care was not updated with a goal statement to evaluate, the care, treatment and services related to the change in patient’s condition related to the symptom of choking. Example #2: During a review of the medical record for RRHV#2, the following information was noted: The patient’s primary diagnosis was Chronic diastolic heart failure. The plan of care problem statement was Patient has a terminal illness with a prognosis of six months or less. The goal statement for this problem was Patient will be well-palliated through end of life by management of pain, dyspnea, nausea/vomiting, constipation, and any other symptoms that may arise during Hospice care. The goal statement did not include a method to evaluate the response to care, treatment, and services related to the terminal illness diagnosis of Chronic diastolic heart failure. In addition, the comprehensive assessment identified that the patient was at risk for falls. During week 2 of the 1st benefit period, the clinician documented that the patient had experienced a fall. The plan of care was not updated with a goal statement to evaluate response to care, treatment and services related to fall prevention interventions. The stated timeframe of ...through end of life... is not a realistic measurement to assess the implementation of problem interventions. During home visit activity, the patient stated he had experienced a new fall 2 days prior to the date of survey. Example #3: During a review of the medical record for RRHV#3, the following information was noted: The patient’s primary diagnosis was Cancer with unknown primary site. The plan of care problem statement was Patient has a terminal illness with a prognosis of six months or less. The goal statement for this problem was Patient will be well-palliated through end of life by management of pain, dyspnea, nausea/vomiting, constipation, and any other symptoms that may arise during Hospice care. The goal statement did not include a method to evaluate the response to care, treatment, and services related to the terminal illness diagnosis of Cancer with unknown primary site. The stated timeframe of ...through end of life... is not a realistic measurement to assess the implementation of problem interventions. During week 3 of the 1st benefit period, the clinician documented that the patient had experienced a fall. The plan of care was not updated with a goal statement to evaluate response to care, treatment and services related to fall prevention interventions. Example #4: During a review of the medical record for RRHV#4, the following information was noted: The patient’s primary diagnosis was Anaplastic thyroid carcinoma. The plan of care problem statement was Patient has a terminal illness with a prognosis of six months or less. The goal statement for this problem was Patient will be well-palliated through end of life by management of pain, dyspnea, nausea/vomiting, constipation, and any other symptoms that may arise during Hospice care. The goal statement did not include a method to evaluate the response to care, treatment, and services related to the terminal illness diagnosis of Anaplastic thyroid carcinoma. The stated timeframe of ...through end of life... is not a realistic measurement to assess the implementation of problem interventions. Example #5: During a review of the medical record for RRHV#5, the following information was noted: The patient’s primary diagnosis was Pancreatic carcinoma metastatic to liver. The plan of care problem statement was Patient has a terminal illness with a prognosis of six months or less. The goal statement for this problem was Patient will be well-palliated through end of life by management of pain, dyspnea, nausea/vomiting, constipation, and any other symptoms that may arise during Hospice care. The goal statement did not include a method to evaluate the response to care, treatment, and services related to the terminal illness diagnosis of Pancreatic carcinoma metastatic to liver. The stated timeframe of ...through end of life... is not a realistic measurement to assess the implementation of problem interventions. Example #6: During a review of the medical record for RRHV#6, the following information was noted: The patient’s primary diagnosis was Respiratory failure, unspecified chronicity. The plan of care problem statement was Patient has a terminal illness with a prognosis of six months or less. The goal statement for this problem was Patient will be well-palliated through end of life by management of pain, dyspnea, nausea/vomiting, constipation, and any other symptoms that may arise during Hospice care. The goal statement did not include a method to evaluate the response to care, treatment, and services related to the terminal illness diagnosis of Respiratory failure, unspecified chronicity. The stated timeframe of ...through end of life... is not a realistic measurement to assess the implementation of problem interventions. This observation was reviewed with the Administrator and the Nurse Manager.”

    Rule L0545. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 268 words

    “Observed in Individual Tracer. In 3 of 6, individual tracers, it was noted that the organization did not ensure that the plan of care was revised when the patient’s condition changed. For example, a review of the medical record for RRHV#1, revealed the clinician documented that the patient was experiencing a new symptom of choking. The plan of care was not updated with interventions to address the change in the patient’s condition related to the symptom of choking. Example #2: A review of the medical record for RRHV#2, revealed that the patient experienced a fall during week 2 of the 1st benefit period. The plan of care was not updated with interventions to maintain patient safety, strategies to prevent injury, and a goal statement to evaluate response to care, treatment and services related to fall interventions. During home visit activity, the patient stated he had a new fall 2 days prior to the date of survey. A review of the medication profile revealed that the patient was taking Eliquis 2.5mg 1 tablet by mouth 2 times daily, drug class: anticoagulant/blood thinner. The plan of care did not include interventions for education and safety precautions related this high risk medication. Example #3: A review of the medical record for RRHV#3, revealed that the patient experienced a fall during week 3 of the 1st benefit period. The plan of care was not updated with interventions to maintain patient safety, strategies to prevent injury, and a goal statement to evaluate response to care, treatment and services related to fall interventions. This observation was reviewed with the Administrator and the Nurse Manager.”

    Rule L0546. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 282 words

    “Observed in Individual Tracer. In 6 of 6 individual tracers, it was noted that the organization did not ensure the plan of care was revised based on updated comprehensive assessments. For example, a review of the medical record for RRHV#1, revealed that during week 2 of the 1st benefit period, the clinician documented that the patient was experiencing a new symptom of choking. The plan of care was not updated with a goal statement to evaluate, the care, treatment and services related to the change in patient’s condition related to the symptom of choking. Since a goal statement related to choking was not established, the requirement to address the patient’s progress toward goals and outcomes related to choking was not completed. Example #2: During week 2 of the 1st benefit period for RRHV#2, the clinician documented that the patient had experienced a fall. The plan of care was not updated with a goal statement to evaluate response to care, treatment and services related to fall prevention interventions. Since a goal statement related to falls prevention was not established, the requirement to address the patient’s progress toward goals and outcomes related to falls prevention was not completed. Example #3: During week 3 of the 1st benefit period for RRHV#3, the clinician documented that the patient had experienced a fall. The plan of care was not updated with a goal statement to evaluate response to care, treatment and services related to fall prevention interventions. Since a goal statement related to falls prevention was not established, the requirement to address the patient’s progress toward goals and outcomes related to falls prevention was not completed. This observation was reviewed with the Administrator and the Nurse Manager.”

    Rule L0553. Standard-level.

  • Program data (42 CFR 418.58(b)(2)(ii))

    The inspectors’ words, 111 words

    “Observed in Data Tracer. Since the organization was not currently analyzing the data collected on falls as noted by the hospice pharmacy surveyor, improvement opportunities could not be identified in this area of the QAPI requirement. This omission was validated with nursing management at the time of the survey. Observed in Data Session. During a review of the data for fall risk in the Hospice patient population, the hospice pharmacy surveyor noted that fall data was collected quarterly by the organization; however analysis of this collection was not being used to identify opportunities and priorities for improvement, This omission was validated with the QAPI team at the time of the survey.”

    Rule L0564. Standard-level.

  • Program activities (42 CFR 418.58(c)(2))

    “Observed in Data Session. During the quality improvement (QAPI} session, the Hospice pharmacy surveyor noted that although performance improvement events and actions were analyzed to determine reasons for patient falls and implement actions to avoid or improve these fall numbers in the hospice patients, the goal set to be at 3.3/1000 patient days was not met for any of the quarters in 2024 remaining at twice the desired goal of around 7/1,000 patient days.. This issue was validated with the QAPI Coordinator at the time of the survy”

    Rule L0569. Standard-level.

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

    “Observed in Record Review. In 2 of 3 discharge records reviewed, it was noted that a discharge/transfer summary that included all required information was not completed. For example, a review of the medical records for RRHV#2, and RRHV#3, revealed no evidence that a discharge summary including the following information was documented: 1) A summary of the patient’s stay, including treatments, symptoms, and pain management, 2) The patient’s current plan of care, and 3) The patient’s latest physician orders. This observation was reviewed with Administrator and the Nurse Manager.”

    Rule L0684. Standard-level.

  • N/a (42 CFR 418.110(d)(1)(i))

    “Observed in Building Tour. Above the entrance to Room 1101, there was insulation and IT cables using the sprinkler pipe for support. Confirmed by the Facilities Staff. The surveyor discussed the Life Safety deficiency with the organization, and it was determined that the following ILSMs will be implemented until the deficiency has been resolved and according to the organization’s ILSM policy:”

    Rule L0827. Standard-level.

The one inspection in the last three years
Inspections on record
DateVisitWhat the record says
Apr 4, 2025Reaccreditation inspection by The Joint Commission9 deficiencies cited

Is it certified?

  • Medicare-certified hospice since Feb 25, 1988.
  • Ownership: non-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): 14.1 nurse care minutes per routine home care day, 14.2% of skilled nursing minutes at weekends and a visit near death for 94.7% of patients who died.
  • Where its patients were cared for (Jan 1, 2024 to Dec 31, 2024): 58% at home, 6% in assisted living, 31% in a nursing facility, 5% in an inpatient hospice.
Source:

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

Staffing measures
MeasureThis provider
Nurse care minutes per routine home care day14.1 min
Skilled nursing minutes at weekends14.2%
Visits near death94.7% of patients who died

Who owns it?

  • 23 owners or officers are people: Donald L Price (corporate director, 0%); Robert D Moorhead (corporate director); Jason Jackman (corporate director); Jackie S Sweeney (corporate director); Sylvia Buxton (corporate director, 0%); Joseph Koester (corporate director); Lori A Ritchey-Baldwin (corporate officer); Lori A Ritchey-Baldwin (managing employee (on the payroll)); John Hawkins (corporate director, 0%); Robert Stevens (corporate director); Kristi Nelson (corporate director); Andrew Schaeffer (corporate director); Jeanne Schroer (corporate director, 0%); Debbie Simpson (corporate director, 0%); Kris Knochelmann (corporate director); Garren Colvin (corporate officer); Garren Colvin (corporate director); Garren Colvin (managing employee (on the payroll)); Marsha A Ladenburger (corporate director); Derek Haught (corporate director, 0%); Lisa Frey (corporate officer); Vera Hall (corporate officer, 0%); Vera Hall (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.

What do families say?

  • Family caregivers rate it 4 of 5 in CMS’s survey (Oct 1, 2023 to Sep 30, 2025): 86% rated it 9 or 10 out of 10, and 89% would definitely recommend it.
  • CMS’s Hospice Care Index: 9 of 10 (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024).
  • 99.94% of patients were assessed on all seven of CMS’s measures at the start of care (Oct 1, 2024 to Sep 30, 2025); 72.7% 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 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 threshold9 of 10

How does it compare nearby?

  • Of the 6 hospices CMS’s data show serving patients in ZIP code 41017, where this hospice’s office is, the middle number of deficiencies cited in the last three years was 7; this one had 9.
Source:

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

CMS, QCOR hospice inspection reports. Released Oct 23, 2026. Updated quarterly.

The 6 hospices CMS lists serving ZIP code 41017
PlaceDeficiencies, 3 years
Hospice Care of St Elizabeth Healthcare This hospice9
Hospice of the Bluegrass, Inc. DBA Bluegrass Care N7
Hospice of Dayton7
Hospice of Cincinnati, Inc.16
Vitas Healthcare Corporation of Ohio4
Crossroads Hospice of Cincinnati, LLCNot given

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.