Hearth Record

Gentiva

A hospice in Auburndale, Massachusetts 02466

130 Rumford Avenue, Suite 211, Auburndale, Massachusetts 02466. (617) 332-0813.

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 11 deficiencies in 1 month of the last 36. Last cited Dec 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?

11 deficiencies cited in the last three years

The middle of the 11 hospices serving ZIP code 02466 had 6.

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

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

11 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.

Dec 4, 2025: reaccreditation inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care11 deficiencies
  • Timeframe for completion of assessment (42 CFR 418.54(b))

    “Upon patient record review 2 of 19 (Patient #6, #12) 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 6: The initial spiritual assessment was completed on 8/21/25 with start of care 8/13/25. Patient #12: The initial spiritual assessment was completed on 2/4/25 with start of care 1/29/2025.”

    Rule L0523. Standard-level.

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

    “Upon patient record review 2 of 19 (Patient #11, #14) did not have evidence in the patient record that the comprehensive assessment identifies the physical, psychosocial, emotional, and 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. Patient #11: There was no evidence of an initial comprehensive spiritual assessment. Patient #14: There was no evidence of an initial comprehensive spiritual assessment.”

    Rule L0524. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 207 words

    “Upon patient record review, 2 of 19 (Patients #5, #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 #5: The medication profile contained duplicate Keppra entries with differing doses and differing administration routes of oral and PEG tube. The medication profile also contained an order for MiraLax, however there were no mixing instructions for this medication. The medication profile also contained an order for Famotidine tablets to administer via PEG tube, however there were no instructions how to prepare medication for PEG tube administration. Corrected on site with order clarification and medication profile updated. Patient #13: During medication reconciliation, the facility and hospice medications did not match. The facility medication profile contained acetaminophen with administration route as suppository. The hospice medication profile contained acetaminophen with administration route as oral. The hospice medication profile also contained PRN orders for guaifenesin and Milk of Mag, but these medications were absent from facility medication profile.”

    Rule L0530. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 132 words

    “Upon patient record review, 2 of 19 (Patient #2, #5) 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 medical record indicated patient has a skin tear to left lower arm with foam border dressing in place. There is no evidence of a wound care order. Patient #5: There were duplicate Keppra orders with differing doses and differing administration routes of oral and PEG tube. The order for MiraLax did not have mixing instructions for this medication. The order for Famotidine tablets to administer via PEG tube, however there were no instructions to prepare medication for PEG tube administration. Corrected on site with order clarification and medication profile updated.”

    Rule L0549. Standard-level.

  • Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(5))

    The inspectors’ words, 172 words

    “Upon patient record review, 4 of 19 (Patient #3, #5, #6, #11) 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 equipment and supply needs. Patient 3: The medical record contained nursing documentation upon admission identifying patient use of gel mattress. There was no evidence of orders for the DME included in the plan of care. Corrected on site with orders received. Patient 5: The medical record contained DME order for O2. There was no evidence of need or physician order for O2. Corrected on site with DME order discontinued. Patient 6: The medical record contained nursing documentation upon admission identifying patient use of bed rails. There was no evidence of orders for the DME included in the plan of care. Corrected on site with orders received. Patient 11: The medical record contained DME order for O2. There was no evidence of need or physician order for O2. Corrected on site with DME order discontinued.”

    Rule L0550. Standard-level.

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

    “Upon client record review, 1 of 19 (Patient #12) did not have evidence that the IDG ensures that the care and services are provided in accordance with the plan of care. Patient 12: There was an order for nurse visit frequency of twice weekly. There was no evidence of second visit made week of 11/2/25. The medical record also contained an order for chaplain visit frequency of once monthly. There was no evidence of a visit in October.”

    Rule L0555. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 134 words

    “Upon patient record review 3 of 19 (Patient #6, #8, #12) 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 6: The medical record contained an order for aide visits three times weekly. There was no evidence of third visit made weeks of 10/12/25 and10/19/25. Patient 8: The medical record contained an order for aide visits three times weekly. There was only one visit made week of 10/5/25. Patient 12: The medical record contained an order for aide visits two times weekly. There was no evidence of second visit made week of 11/23/25.”

    Rule L0626. Standard-level.

  • Content (42 CFR 418.104(a)(2))

    “Upon patient client record review, 1 of 19 (Patient #9) did not have evidence that each patient record contains: • Signed copies of the notice of patient rights in accordance with 418.52 • Signed election statement in accordance with 418.24 Patient 9: The election form identified the patient elected to receive the Notification of Hospice Non-Covered items upon admission 3/29/25. There was no evidence the patient received the requested addendum.”

    Rule L0673. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 96 words

    “Upon client record review, 2 of 19 (Patient #5, #13) 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: There was an order for nurse visit frequency of twice weekly. There was no evidence of second visit made weeks of 11/9/25 and 11/16/25. Patient 13: There was an order for chaplain visit frequency of three visits a month. There was no evidence of third visit made in October.”

    Rule L0773. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 94 words

    “Upon client record review, 1 of 19 (Patient #5) 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 5: The record indicates the patient has a PEG tube, however the care plan did not indicate who was responsible for the care of the Peg tube. Corrected on site with orders received and care plan updated.”

    Rule L0774. Standard-level.

  • Criminal background checks (42 CFR 418.114(d)(1))

    “Upon personnel record review, 3 of 15 (Personnel #13,#14,#15) did not have evidence the hospice obtained a criminal background check on all contracted individuals who have direct patient care and access to patient records. Personnel 13,14,15: There was no evidence of criminal background checks completed for all states the individuals may have lived in within the past 3 years. Agency contacted the contracted agency to inquire, however they only run state criminal background checks.”

    Rule L0795. Standard-level.

The one inspection in the last three years
Inspections on record
DateVisitWhat the record says
Dec 4, 2025Reaccreditation inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care11 deficiencies cited

Is it certified?

  • Medicare-certified hospice since Nov 8, 2010.
  • 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): 12.7 nurse care minutes per routine home care day, 12.3% of skilled nursing minutes at weekends and a visit near death for 93.1% of patients who died.
  • Where its patients were cared for (Jan 1, 2024 to Dec 31, 2024): 17% at home, 5% in assisted living, 3% in a nursing facility, 74% 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 day12.7 min
Skilled nursing minutes at weekends12.3%
Visits near death93.1% of patients who died

Who owns it?

  • Centerwell Home Health Services LLC owns 100% directly since Aug 17, 2021.
  • Curo Health Services LLC runs it.
  • 7 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%); Janet L Combs (managing employee (on the payroll), 0%); Catherine Coutts (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
Kentucky Homecare Parent Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies100%Jul 2, 2018
Centerwell Home Health Services LLCOwns 5% or more directly100%Aug 17, 2021
Kentucky Homecare Holdings, Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies100%Jul 2, 2018
Humana Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies100%Aug 17, 2021
Centerwell Health Services Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies100%Jul 2, 2018
Curo Health Services LLCRuns it (operational or managerial control)Jul 11, 2018

What do families say?

  • Family caregivers rate it 5 of 5 in CMS’s survey (Oct 1, 2023 to Sep 30, 2025): 88% rated it 9 or 10 out of 10, and 90% would definitely recommend it.
  • CMS’s Hospice Care Index: 9 of 10 (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024).
  • 98.92% of patients were assessed on all seven of CMS’s measures at the start of care (Oct 1, 2024 to Sep 30, 2025); 68.3% 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 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 11 hospices CMS’s data show serving patients in ZIP code 02466, where this hospice’s office is, the middle number of deficiencies cited in the last three years was 6; this one had 11.
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.