Hearth Record

Moments Hospice

A hospice in Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422

820 Lilac Drive N Ste 210, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422. (763) 205-3600.

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 9 deficiencies in 3 months of the last 36. Last cited Jul 2026. Most serious: Condition-level, immediate jeopardy. Every month

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

What these words mean5
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.
Immediate jeopardy
CMS’s most serious finding: the place’s failure to meet a rule caused, or was likely to cause, serious injury, harm, impairment or death to someone in its care. Source: CMS; 42 CFR 489.3.

What did inspectors find?

9 deficiencies cited in the last three years

The middle of the 27 hospices serving ZIP code 55422 had 2.

The last inspection on record was on Jul 9, 2026: a reaccreditation inspection by the Community Health Accreditation Partner.

Patients in immediate jeopardy, CMS’s most serious finding: IDG, care planning, coordination of services (42 CFR 418.56), Nov 26, 2024

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

9 deficiencies in 3 months of the last 36. Last cited Jul 2026. Most serious: Condition-level, immediate jeopardy. 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.

Jul 9, 2026: reaccreditation inspection by the Community Health Accreditation Partner4 deficiencies
  • Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(4))

    The inspectors’ words, 203 words

    “It is required that each patient’s individualized written plan of care: includes all services necessary for the palliation and management of the terminal illness, including the following: drugs and treatment necessary to meet the needs of the patient. This standard was not met as evidenced by clinical record review, interview, and observation. In 1 of 19 (5%) clinical records reviewed, the agency did not ensure that each patient’s individualized written plan of care included drugs and treatments to meet the patient’s needs. CLINICAL RECORD 1/HOME VISIT 1: The patient elected the hospice benefit on 06/17/2026 with a terminal diagnosis of atherosclerotic heart disease of the native coronary artery. During the home visit with the Hospice Aide (HA) [Personnel Record 1] on 07/07/2026, it was observed that the patient had a urostomy. A review of the hospice Plan of Care (POC) for the dates of 06/17/2026 through 09/14/2026 revealed no interventions for the care of the urostomy. During a joint review of clinical records and interview on 07/07/2026, the Alternate Administrator stated that the hospice plan of care did not include interventions for the urostomy and the Registered Nurse Case Manager (RNCM) would be instructed to include urostomy care in the plan of care.”

    Rule L0549. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 460 words

    “It is required that the Interdisciplinary Group, in collaboration with the individual’s attending physician (if any), reviews, revises, and documents the individualized care plan: as frequently as the patient’s condition requires; but no less frequently than every 15 calendar days. This standard was not met as evidenced by clinical record review and interview. In 3 of 19 (16%) clinical records reviewed, the agency did not ensure that the individualized care plan was updated as the patient’s condition required, no less frequently than every 15 calendar days. CLINICAL RECORD 6: The patient elected the hospice benefit on 07/09/2025 with a terminal diagnosis of prostate cancer with metastasis to the bone. The (Face 2 Face) F2F dated 04/09/2026 documented that the patient continued to have ongoing right hip and thigh pain which was being managed with Tylenol and topical pain cream per patient and family request, and that the patient now required a Hoyer lift for transfers into the wheelchair. A new order for hydrocodone 5 mg/acetaminophen 325 mg was prescribed on 06/25/2026. An interdisciplinary group (IDG) note dated 06/29/2026 documented that patient was becoming fearful and having feelings of doom with increased back pain. A review of the hospice plan of care (POC) report for the dates of 08/05/2025 through 07/07/2026 revealed no update to the POC. CLINICAL RECORD 8: The patient elected the hospice benefit 06/06/2025 with a terminal diagnosis of Parkinson’s Disease. An order was written on 06/12/2026 for acyclovir 5% cream apply thin layer to mouth/skin/lip sores four times daily (QID) an additional 4 days for mouth/skin/lip sores. A review of the hospice plan of care (POC) for the dates of 06/12/2026 through 07/07/2026 revealed the POC was not updated to include interventions for the mouth/skin/lip sores. CLINICAL RECORD 14: The patient elected the hospice benefit on 04/21/2025 with a terminal diagnosis of systolic and diastolic congestive heart failure. The Register Nurse (RN) visit note dated 03/23/2026 documented the new onset of wound #3, a coccyx, pressure ulcer, Stage 1, and new orders were received for wound care to Stage 1 pressure ulcer- “Hospice nurse to cleanse wound with wound cleanser. pat dry, apply calcium alginate to wound bed, and cover with bordered foam dressing 2XW. Facility staff to change prn when dressing becomes loose or soiled.” The RN visit note dated 04/22/2026 documented that the wound was resolved. A review of the hospice plan of care (POC) for the dates of 03/23/2026 through 04/22/2026 revealed the POC was not updated to include interventions for the wound. During a joint review of clinical records and interview on 07/07/2026, the Alternate Administrator stated that the Plans of Care were not updated when the patient’s condition changed and the RN staff would receive re-education on the update of the POC.”

    Rule L0552. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 504 words

    “It is required that hospice aides are assigned to a specific patient by a registered nurse who is a member of the Interdisciplinary Group. Written patient care instructions for a hospice aide are prepared by a RN who is responsible for the supervision of the hospice aide. This standard was not met as evidenced by clinical record review, interview, and observation. In 4 of 19 (21%) clinical records reviewed for patients who received Hospice Aide (HA) services, the agency did not ensure that the Hospice Aide received written patient care instructions to meet the patient’s needs. CLINICAL RECORD 1/HOME VISIT 1: The patient elected the hospice benefit on 06/17/2026 with a terminal diagnosis of atherosclerotic heart disease of the native coronary artery. During the home visit with the Hospice Aide (HA) [Personnel Record 1] on 07/07/2026, the patient had a urostomy. The hospice Plan of Care (POC) dated 06/17/2026 through 09/14/2026 ordered Hospice Aide visits 3XW. The HA care plan dated 06/17/2026 through 07/08/2026 did not assign the HA a task or instruction for personal care consideration for the urostomy. CLINICAL RECORD 4: The patient elected the hospice benefit on 12/11/2025 with the terminal diagnosis of cerebrovascular disease. The hospice POC dated 12/11/2025 through 03/10/2026 ordered HA visits 1w1 4w1 2w11 1w1. The HA care plan reviewed for the dates of 12/11/2025 through 03/10/2026 assigned the HA the task to offer fluids every visit. The Certification of Terminal Illness (CTI) dated 12/17/2025 documented that the patient had difficulty swallowing. The RN visit note dated 12/11/2025 documented the intervention to instruct the patient and caregiver regarding the disease progression and effects on swallowing. A review of the HA care plan for the dates of 12/11/2025 through 03/11/2026 revealed no assigned task or instruction for aspiration precautions. CLINICAL RECORD 17: The patient elected the hospice benefit on 12/09/2025 with a terminal diagnosis of cerebral infarction and seizure disorder. The Registered Nurse (RN) initial comprehensive assessment completed 12/09/2025 documented that the patient had 1-2 falls in the past 3 months, intermittent confusion, and dysphagia. The hospice POC dated 12/09/2025 through 01/22/2026 ordered HA visits 7XW. A review of the HA care plan for the dates of 12/09/2025 through 01/22/2026 revealed no instructions for seizure precautions, aspiration precautions, or fall precautions. CLINICAL RECORD 19: This patient elected the hospice benefit on 07/21/2025 with a terminal diagnosis of malignant neoplasm of the kidney. The RN recertification visit dated 01/20/2026 documented that the patient was a high risk for falls and was being treated with oxygen at 2 liters per minute via nasal cannula as needed (PRN). A review of the HA care plan for the dates of 01/17/2026 through 02/10/2026 revealed no instructions for fall precautions or oxygen safety. During a joint review of clinical records and an interview on 07/07/2026, the Alternate Administrator stated that the Hospice Aide care plans did not include the necessary instructions and that the Registered Nurses (RNs) would be educated to ensure all necessary instructions were added to the Hospice Aide care plans.”

    Rule L0625. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 195 words

    “It is required that a hospice aide provides services: included in the plan of care. This standard was not met as evidenced by clinical record review, interview, and observation. In 1 of 19 (21%) clinical records reviewed for patients who received Hospice Aide (HA) services, the agency did not ensure that the Hospice Aide provided services included in the plan of care. CLINICAL RECORD 1/HOME VISIT 1 : This patient elected the hospice benefit on 06/17/2026 with a terminal diagnosis of atherosclerotic heart disease of the native coronary artery. During the home visit with the Hospice Aide (HA) [Personnel Record 1] on 07/07/2026, the HA was observed providing a facial shave. The hospice Plan of Care (POC) dated 06/17/2026 through 09/14/2026 ordered Hospice Aide visits 3XW. The HA care plan dated 06/17/2026 through 07/08/2026 did not assign the HA a task or instruction for providing a shave. During a joint review of clinical records and interview on 07/07/2026, the Alternate Administrator stated that the Hospice Aide care plans did not include the necessary instructions and the Registered Nurses (RRN) would be educated to ensure all necessary instructions were added to the Hospice Aide care plan.”

    Rule L0626. Standard-level.

Apr 30, 2026: complaint inspection by the state1 deficiency
  • Coordination of services (42 CFR 418.56(e)(4))

    The inspectors’ words, 370 words

    “Based on observation, record review, interview, and policy review, the Hospice agency failed to ensure the plan of care (POC) and medication list were updated in the hospice binder located at the nursing desk at a skilled nursing facility during one patient (Patient (P)5) observation out of three total home care visits completed. The failure to provide the correct information for all disciplines providing care had the potential to result in medication errors or the provision of inadequate care and services. Findings include: During P5’s home visit observation on 04/28/26 at 12:40 PM, a review was completed of the hospice binder located at the facility nursing station. The binder did not include P5’s current hospice POC. In addition, comparison of the hospice medication list with the facility medication list revealed the hospice list was not updated and did not match the facility list. The facility list included lorazepam (a medication for anxiety) 0.5 milligrams (mg) every four hours as needed for terminal agitation, morphine sulfate 0.25 milliliters (ml) every eight hours as needed for shortness of breath or pain, and morphine sulfate 0.25 ml every four hours as needed for shortness of breath or pain. The hospice medication list had morphine listed as only every four hours as needed. Morphine every eight hours and lorazepam were not on the hospice medication list. During an interview on 04/28/26 at 2:00 PM, the Executive Director (ED) reviewed and confirmed that the medication list from the facility and the hospice medication list did not match and that the two lists should match. The ED stated the patient hospice POC is supposed to be in the binder at the nurse’s station at the facility. The ED stated the POC is emailed to the facility and that the facility usually puts it in the binder. The ED did agree that this may not be the best approach to ensure coordination of services. Review of the hospice agency undated policy titled, “Interdisciplinary Group Coordination of Care,” revealed, “[Agency] will utilize a case management system to guide an interdisciplinary group to provide comprehensive, coordinated health care to patients and families/caregivers services by the hospice … Continuity of care will be maintained throughout the patient’s course with hospice.””

    Rule L0557. Standard-level. From a complaint.

Nov 26, 2024: complaint inspection by the state4 deficiencies
  • IDG, care planning, coordination of services (42 CFR 418.56)

    The inspectors’ words, 303 words

    “Based on interview and document review, the hospice agency failed to ensure increasing medication doses and initiation of additional medications were based on corresponding objective assessments and reassessments of changes in conditions when requesting additional medications to manage P1s symptoms, resulting in harm when P1 became increasingly lethargic and sustained numerous falls. In addition, the hospice agency failed to coordinate care and communication with P1s assisted living facility to ensure accurate and comprehensive reassessments of P1s changes in condition and medication usage were communicated to P1s provider. This resulted in an immediate jeopardy when P1’s increasing medications and dosage increases preceded P1’s subsequent falls, hospitalization, and death. The immediate jeopardy began on 7/5/24 when the hospice agency prescribed scheduled morphine to P1 despite the hospice nurse’s objective assessment which indicated P1 was in no distress, with no signs or symptoms of pain or shortness of breath. The director of nursing and executive director were notified of the immediate jeopardy on 11/22/24 at 9:32 a.m. The immediate Jeopardy was removed on 11/26/24, after verification of an acceptable removal plan was implemented, but noncompliance remained at the lower scope and severity of level D, which indicated no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy. Findings include: Refer to L556 for additional information. The hospice agency failed to ensure increasing medication doses and additional medications were based on corresponding objective assessments and reassessments of changes in conditions when requesting additional medications to manage P1s symptoms. In addition, the facility failed to coordinate care and communication with the P1s assisted living facility to ensure accurate and comprehensive reassessments of P1s changes in condition and medication usage were communicated to P1s provider. This resulted in an immediate jeopardy when P1’s increasing medications and dosage increases preceded subsequent falls, hospitalization, and death.”

    Rule L0536. Condition-level, immediate jeopardy. From a complaint.

  • Exercise of rights/respect for proprty/person (42 CFR 418.52(b)(4)(i))

    The inspectors’ words, 387 words

    “Based on interview and document review, the hospice agency failed to report an allegation of abuse to the hospice administrator immediately after becoming aware of the situation and failed to report the incident to the state agency for 1 of 3 patients (P1) reviewed for abuse. Findings include: P1s plan of care, dated 7/2/24, indicated P1 was admitted to hospice on 7/1/24 with a primary diagnosis of metastatic prostate cancer and a secondary diagnosis of Alzheimers disease. During an interview on 11/20/24 at 12:57 p.m., registered nurse (RN)-A stated the first time she met P1, on 7/5/24, he appeared “;really lethargic”, but it was not until her next visit on 7/8/24 that an assisted living (AL) nursing assistant (NA) told her an AL nurse gave P1 two medications (Seroquel and Haldol, both antipsychotic medications) that were not prescribed to him. RN-A stated it then made sense why P1 “;seemed so out of it” during her first visit with him. RN-A stated the AL nurse asked for an order for Seroquel or Haldol on 7/5/24 but the hospice doctor for P1 was not comfortable prescribing the medication at that time and did not order the medication. RN- A stated when she found out about the AL nurse giving P1 unprescribed medications she notified her team director and the AL director of nursing (DON). RN-A stated the AL DON stated she was going to report the incident. During an interview on 11/20/24 at 1:22 p.m., the team director (TD) stated he was aware P1 received medications that were not prescribed to him back in July and stated he believed it to be intentional, to “;control” P1s “;behaviors.” The TD stated he completed a medication error report and updated the medical director but did not report the incident to the state agency or the hospice administrator because the facility told him they would report it. During an interview on 11/20/24 at 2:52 p.m., the DON stated she was not aware of the medication concern with P1 until that day. The DON stated the TD and medical director were the only hospice notifications made. During a follow up interview on 11/22/24 at 9:15 a.m., the DON confirmed the executive director and administrator were not made aware of the incident with P1 and that no internal investigation was made on their end.”

    Rule L0508. Standard-level. From a complaint.

  • Exercise of rights/respect for proprty/person (42 CFR 418.52(b)(4)(ii))

    The inspectors’ words, 369 words

    “Based on interview and document review, the hospice agency failed to investigate an allegation of abuse after becoming aware of the situation for 1 of 3 patients (P1) reviewed for abuse. Findings include: P1s plan of care, dated 7/2/24, indicated P1 was admitted to hospice on 7/1/24 with a primary diagnosis of metastatic prostate cancer and a secondary diagnosis of Alzheimers disease. During an interview on 11/20/24 at 12:57 p.m., registered nurse (RN)-A stated the first time she met P1, on 7/5/24, he appeared “;really lethargic”, but it was not until her next visit on 7/8/24 that an assisted living (AL) nursing assistant (NA) told her an AL nurse gave P1 two medications (Seroquel and Haldol) that were not prescribed to him. RN-A stated it then made sense why P1 “;seemed so out of it” during her first visit with him. RN-A stated the AL nurse asked for an order for Seroquel or Haldol on 7/5/24 but the hospice doctor for P1 was not comfortable prescribing the medication at that time. RN- A stated when she found out about the AL nurse giving P1 unprescribed medications she notified her team director and the AL director of nursing (DON). RN-A stated the AL DON stated she was going to report the incident, which is why she did not report or investigate the concern. During an interview on 11/20/24 at 1:22 p.m., the team director (TD) stated he was aware P1 received medications that were not prescribed to him back in July and stated he believed it to be intentional, to “;control” P1s “;behaviors.” The TD stated a medication error report was created and the medical director was updated, but the incident was not reported or investigated because the AL DON stated they would report it. During an interview on 11/20/24 at 2:52 p.m., the DON stated she was not aware of the medication concern with P1 until that day. The DON stated the TD and medical director were the only hospice notifications made. During a follow up interview on 11/22/24 at 9:15 a.m., the DON confirmed the executive director and administrator were not made aware of the incident with P1 and that no internal investigation was conducted on their end.”

    Rule L0509. Standard-level. From a complaint.

  • Coordination of services (42 CFR 418.56(e)(3))

    The inspectors’ words, 2,358 words

    “Based on interview and document review, the hospice agency failed to ensure increasing medication doses and the initiation of additional medications were based on corresponding objective assessments and reassessments of changes in conditions when requesting additional medications to manage P1s symptoms. In addition, the facility failed to coordinate care and communication with the P1s assisted living facility to ensure accurate and comprehensive reassessments of P1s changes in condition and medication usage were communicated to P1s provider. This resulted in an immediate jeopardy when P1’s increasing medications and dosage increases preceded subsequent falls, hospitalization, and death. The immediate jeopardy began on 7/5/24 when the hospice agency prescribed scheduled Morphine to P1 despite the hospice nurse’s objective assessment which indicated P1 was in no distress, with no signs or symptoms of pain or shortness of breath. The director of nursing and executive director were notified of the immediate jeopardy on 11/22/24 at 9:32 a.m., The immediate Jeopardy was removed on 11/26/24, but noncompliance remained at the lower scope and severity of level D, which indicated no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy. Findings include: P1s plan of care, dated 7/2/24, indicated P1 was admitted to hospice on 7/1/24 with a primary diagnosis of metastatic (widespread) prostate cancer and a secondary diagnosis of Alzheimers disease. P1s electronic medical record (EMR) indicated he received the following skilled nursing visits and medication changes from 7/2/24 – 7/13/24: P1’s visit note, dated 7/2/24, documented P1 was visited by registered nurse (RN)-B and was noted to be exhibiting agitation, restlessness, exit seeking, and hallucinations. P1s scheduled olanzapine (medication for treating severe agitation) was increased from 2.5 milligrams (mg) at bedtime to 10 mg twice a day, following a provider call associated with the visit. P1’s visit note dated 7/4/24, documented an as needed (PRN) visit was made by RN-B for restlessness and agitation. P1s PRN olanzapine was increased from 2.5mg daily to 5mg twice a day following a provider call associated with the visit. P1’s visit note dated 7/5/24, documented a visit was made by RN-A. The visit note documented P1 was very lethargic without documented concerns of pain or shortness of breath. However, scheduled morphine (opioid medication to treat pain and shortness of breath) was initiated at 5 mg scheduled every 8 hours that same day following a provider call associated with the visit. P1’s visit note dated 7/8/24, documented a visit was made by RN-A. The note documented the RN-A was made aware that on 7/5/24, P1 was intentionally given two medications that were not prescribed to him (Seroquel and Haldol, both anti-psychotic medications used to treat agitation) by an assisted living staff member. Following the visit no medication changes were made. P1’s visit note dated 7/10/24, documented a visit was made by RN-A and it was documented the assisted living (AL) nurse reported “;significant improvement” in P1s mood and behaviors since the last medication changes were made. No medication changes were made were made following this visit. On 7/11/24, no skilled nursing visit was made, and no triage calls received, for P1. A Chaplain visit note, dated 7/11/24, indicated a visit was made by chaplain (C)-A. C-A documented P1 was awake and in a good mood. However, P1’s Hospice Physican Order, dated 7/11/24, documented a new order for clonazepam (medication to treat anxiety) 0.5 mg twice a day. P1’s visit note dated 7/12/24, by RN-A documented P1 “;appeared calm and not in any immediate distress”. It was also documented P1 had fallen earlier in the day and had been complaining of ankle pain and had been “;agitated and anxious”. The visit note documented the assisted living (AL) facility nurse requested ABH gel (a gel consisting of Ativan, Benadryl, and Haldol which are compounded medications used to treat agitation). Despite P1 being documented as calm during the hospice skilled nursing visit, P1s morphine was increased from 5 mg every 8 hours to 10 mg every 6 hours, clonazepam was increased from 0.5 mg twice a day to three times a day and Haldol was initiated at 5 mg PRN for agitation every 4 hours following a provider call from RN-A. P1s Client Medication Report, printed 11/22/24, indicated P1 had orders for the following medications; clonazepam (medication to treat anxiety) 0.5 mg three times a day scheduled for agitation, Haldol 5 mg every 4 hours PRN for agitation, olanzapine 10 mg two times a day scheduled and 5 mg two times a day as needed (PRN) for agitation/restlessness, lorazepam (medication to treat anxiety) 0.5 mg every 4 hours PRN for agitation/restlessness, morphine 10 mg every 6 hours scheduled and every 3 hours PRN for pain/shortness of breath. With this change in medications P1 was then being administered two benzodiazepines (a class of prescription drugs that slow brain activity and produce a calming effect. Common side effects include respiratory depression, drowsiness, confusion, and syncope), two antipsychotics (a class of prescription drugs that treat symptoms of psychosis, such as hallucinations, delusions, and dementia. A common side effect is sedation) and an opioid medication (pain relieving medication with common side effects which include sedation, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, constipation, and respiratory depression). Review of P1’s medication administration record (MAR) from 7/2/24 through 7/13/24, documented in addition to P1s scheduled medications, he also received the following PRN medications: On 7/2/24, P1 received 2 doses of PRN lorazepam 0.5 mg and 1 dose of PRN olanzapine 2.5 mg. On 7/3/24, P1 received 1 dose or PRN lorazepam 0.5 mg. On 7/4/24, P1 received 2 doses of PRN morphine 5 mg, 2 doses of PRN lorazepam 0.5 mg, and 2 doses of PRN Olanzapine, 2.5 mg. On 7/5/24, P1 received 2 doses of PRN morphine 5 mg, 3 doses of PRN lorazepam 0.5 mg, and 1 dose of PRN olanzapine 2.5 mg. (In addition to a dose of unprescribed Haldol and Seroquel of unknown doses taken from another resident without an order). On 7/6/24, P1 received 2 doses of PRN lorazepam 0.5 mg. On 7/7/24, P1 received 1 dose of PRN morphine 5 mg and 1 dose of PRN lorazepam 0.5 mg. On 7/8/24, P1 received 1 dose of PRN morphine 5 mg, 1 dose of PRN lorazepam 0.5 mg, and 1 dose of PRN olanzapine 2.5 mg. On 7/9/24, P1 received 2 doses of PRN morphine 5 mg, 2 doses of PRN lorazepam 0.5 mg, and 1 dose of PRN olanzapine 2.5 mg. On 7/10/24, P1 received 3 doses of PRN morphine 5 mg, 3 doses of PRN lorazepam 0.5 mg, and 1 dose of PRN olanzapine 2.5 mg. On 7/11/24, P1 received 2 doses of PRN morphine 5 mg, 2 doses of PRN lorazepam 0.5 mg, and 2 doses of PRN olanzapine 2.5 mg. On 7/12/24, P1 received 2 doses of PRN morphine 5 mg, 2 doses of PRN lorazepam 0.5 mg, and 3 doses of PRN olanzapine 2.5 mg. On 7/13/24, P1 received 3 doses of PRN morphine 5 mg, 4 doses of PRN lorazepam 0.5 mg, and 1 dose of PRN Haldol 5 mg. P1S Hospice electronic medical record (EMR) documented between 7/4/24 and 7/13/24, P1 sustained 10 falls. Two falls on 7/4/24, one fall on 7/8/24, one fall on 7/12/24 and six falls on 7/13/24 resulting in a head strike and hospitalization. P1’s hospital Death Summary, dated 7/23/24 documented P1 passed away nine days later in the hospital. During an interview on 11/21/24 at 10:00 a.m., FM-A stated P1 was admitted to the AL facility on 7/1/24 and at the time P1 was walking and able to carry on conversation. FM-A stated P1 would wander at times, looking for her but was not agitated or aggressive in nature. FM-A further stated after the incident on 7/5/24, when P1 received two medications that were not prescribed to him he was “;never the same” and seemed overly sedated from that point forward. FM-A voiced distressed in P1 passing away in the hospital, stating “;he should not have had to die in that way.” During an interview on 11/20/24 at 12:57 p.m., registered nurse (RN)-A stated the first time she met P1, on 7/5/24, he was observed “;really lethargic”, but it was not until her next visit on 7/8/24 that an assisted living (AL) nursing assistant (NA) told her an AL nurse gave P1 two medications, Seroquel and Haldol, that were not prescribed to him and were taken from another AL resident. RN-A stated it then made sense why P1 “;seemed so out of it” during her first visit with him. RN-A stated the AL nurse asked for an order for Seroquel or Haldol on 7/5/24 but the hospice doctor for P1 was not comfortable prescribing the medication at the time. RN-A stated she made “;a lot” of medication changes with P1 despite her never seeing him aggressive or agitated, stating he was always calm and eating well during her visits. RN-A further stated the medication changes made for P1 were “;all based on what the facility reported” stating “;I think they [the AL facility] just wanted meds [medication] to knock him [P1] out.” RN-A further stated the AL facility had threatened to switch P1 to their hospice agency if they did not prescribe medications they were requesting. RN-A stated P1 died in the hospital and his spouse was “;very upset” he died in the hospital. During an interview on 11/20/24 at 1:22 p.m., the team director (TD) stated he was aware P1 received medications that were not prescribed to him in July and stated he believed it to be intentional by the AL staff, to “;control” P1s “;behaviors.” The TD stated he completed a medication error report and updated the medical director but did not report the incident to the state agency because the facility told him they would report it to the state agency. The TD stated P1s family member (FM)-A reported P1 wanted to get up and walk around and was not aware of his surroundings, because he was new to the facility, but FM-A did not report any agitation. The TD also stated RN-A would call and report that the facility was asking for increased medications to manage agitation and RN-A reported P1 was not assessed to be agitated according to the assessment from RN-A. The TD stated it was expected that RN-A ensured the medical director was aware they were not seeing any behaviors in P1. The TD further stated the multiple medication changes very much felt to be “;facility driven.” TD further explained they generally only use lorazepam for end-of-life agitation and that should have been explained to the AL facility to ensure it was not being used as a maintenance medication due to the medication causing an increased risk for falls. During an interview on 11/20/24 at 2:17 p.m., P1s provider and medical director (MD) stated it was not uncommon for AL facilities to struggle with taking care of patients who were restless or agitated, stating they either “;cant or dont have the patience” to properly manage them. The MD stated he only had the nurses assessment of P1 to go off and had he known P1 was receiving PRN Lorazepam he would not have increased the second benzodiazepine (clonazepam), stating the PRN Lorazepam should have only been used for end-of-life agitation and he would not be expecting it to be administered to P1. MD confirmed he was unaware that P1 was receiving any lorazepam and was concerned that he was getting it daily, stating it would be a fall risk to have P1 taking Lorazepam daily along with his scheduled clonazepam. MD stated prescribing the second anti-psychotic (Haldol) was not something he agreed with but did it because the facility was continually asking for medications to control P1s agitation. MD stated he was unaware P1 was not displaying behaviors during the hospice nurse visits, and was unaware the reports of behavioral symptoms were from the facility staff and were not based off the hospice nurse assessments. During an interview on 11/20/24 at 2:40 p.m., P1s pharmacist (P)-A stated P1 was consuming “;a lot” of highly sedative medications and stated with a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease, benzodiazepines are often contraindicated because they can lead to increased confusion and agitation. P-A also stated concern with P1’s high dose of morphine and stated she would have liked to see a decrease in P1s benzodiazepines or anti-psychotics with a morphine dose that high. P-A further stated P1s medications put him at a high fall risk due to them being highly sedative, stating generally with older adults Seroquel is preferred over olanzapine and lorazepam is preferred over clonazepam as they are less sedating. During an interview on 11/20/24 at 2:52 p.m., the hospice director of nursing (DON) stated the indication for the lorazepam order in P1s EMR was missing the word “;terminal” from an indication of use for terminal agitation and the indication was instead listed as only “agitation/restlessness” which could have led to the confusion of it being used as a maintenance medication by the AL facility. The DON further stated it would be expected that the hospice team had objective assessments and reasonings on why P1s medications were increased or changed based on symptoms observed by the hospice, not solely based on what the AL facility was reporting. The DON further stated she was not aware of the incident on 7/5/24 when P1 intentionally received two anti-psychotic medications that were not prescribed to him until that day’s interview on 11/20/24. The immediate jeopardy that began on 7/5/24, was removed on 11/26/24, upon verification of implementation of the removal plan and when the facility provided education to all staff on serious adverse event reporting, abuse reporting, and incident reporting prior to returning to work for their next shift and provided education to all licensed staff (registered nurse case managers, licensed practical nurses, nurse practitioners, medical providers and the medical director) on the following policies; Comprehensive Assessment Policy, Ongoing Assessment Policy, Pain Assessment Policy, Identification, Prevention, and Treatment of Secondary Symptoms Policy, Monitoring Patient’s Response/Reporting to Physician Policy, Medication Monitoring Policy, Safe/Effective Use of Medication Policy, and Provision of Care to Residents of SNF/NF (skilled nursing facility/nursing facility).”

    Rule L0556. Standard-level. From a complaint.

All 4 inspections in the last three years
Inspections on record
DateVisitWhat the record says
Jul 9, 2026Reaccreditation inspection by the Community Health Accreditation Partner4 deficiencies cited
Apr 30, 2026Complaint inspection by the state1 deficiency cited
Jan 2, 2025Complaint inspection by the stateNo deficiencies cited
Nov 26, 2024Complaint inspection by the state4 deficiencies cited

Is it certified?

  • Medicare-certified hospice since Nov 20, 2017.
  • Ownership: for-profit.
  • Cited for to patients’ health or safety 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.
  • 5 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): 15.3 nurse care minutes per routine home care day, 5.1% 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): 10% at home, 52% in assisted living, 34% in a nursing facility, 4% 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 day15.3 min
Skilled nursing minutes at weekends5.1%
Visits near death93.1% of patients who died

Who owns it?

  • 5 owners or officers are people: Eliyahu Jaffa (runs it (operational or managerial control), 100%); Eliyahu Jaffa (owns 5% or more directly, 50%); Cheryl Gail Schabes (owns 5% or more directly, 50%); Eliyahu Jaffa (managing employee (on the payroll)); Mark D Stannard (managing employee (under contract)).
  • 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 1 of 5 in CMS’s survey (Oct 1, 2023 to Sep 30, 2025): 69% rated it 9 or 10 out of 10, and 70% would definitely recommend it.
  • CMS’s Hospice Care Index: 9 of 10 (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024).
  • 100% of patients were assessed on all seven of CMS’s measures at the start of care (Oct 1, 2024 to Sep 30, 2025); 62.7% 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 51 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 27 hospices CMS’s data show serving patients in ZIP code 55422, where this hospice’s office is, the middle number of deficiencies cited in the last three years was 2; 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.

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.