Hearth Record

Emerald Hospice and Life

A hospice in Las Vegas, Nevada 89119

1500 E Tropicana Avenue, Ste 127, Las Vegas, Nevada 89119. (424) 263-7438.

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 16 deficiencies in 1 month of the last 36. Last cited Sep 2024. Most serious: Standard-level. Every month

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

What these words mean2
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?

16 deficiencies cited in the last three years

The middle of the 86 hospices serving ZIP code 89119 had 6.

The last inspection on record was on Sep 11, 2024: an initial 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

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

16 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.

Sep 11, 2024: initial inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care16 deficiencies
  • Notice of rights and responsibilities (42 CFR 418.52(a)(3))

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 14 records reviewed (Patient #1) did not have evidence that the hospice obtained the patient’s or representative’s signature confirming that they received a copy of the Patient’s Rights and Responsibilities. Patients #1: The record did not show evidence the patient had received a copy of the patients rights and responsibilities. COS.”

    Rule L0504. Standard-level.

  • Timeframe for completion of assessment (42 CFR 418.54(b))

    “Upon patient record review 1 of 14 records reviewed (Patient #4) 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 #4: The record indicated the start of care was 07/22/24. There was no evidence of the psychosocial comprehensive assessment being completed until 07/28/24.”

    Rule L0523. Standard-level.

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

    “Upon patient record review 1 of 14 records reviewed (Patient #13) 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 13: The record indicated the start of care was on 01/03/24. There was no evidence of the psychosocial assessment being completed at the time of the survey.”

    Rule L0524. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 139 words

    “Upon patient record review, 2 of 14 records reviewed (Patient #4,#6) 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 #4: Upon home visit medication reconciliation audit, the patient was taking AREDS 2 one tablet daily this was not listed on the MAR. COS. Patient #6: The record indicated on the MAR the patient was taking Hydrocodone/Acetaminophen 5mg/325mg one tab po BID and Acetaminophen ES 500mg 2 tabs po Q6hours prn pain. There was no max amount of Acetaminophen in a 24 hour period. COS.”

    Rule L0530. Standard-level.

  • Content of comprehensive assessment (42 CFR 418.54(c)(7))

    The inspectors’ words, 103 words

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 14 records reviewed (Patient #4) did not have evidence in the patient record that the comprehensive assessment includes a bereavement component which includes the needs of the patient’s family and other individuals focusing on the social, spiritual, and cultural factors that may impact their ability to cope with the patient’s death. Information gathered from the initial bereavement assessment is incorporated into the plan of care and is considered in the bereavement plan of care. Patient #4: The record indicated the start of care was 07/22/24. There was no evidence of the Bereavement Assessment being completed until 07/28/24.”

    Rule L0531. Standard-level.

  • Approach to service delivery (42 CFR 418.56(a)(1))

    The inspectors’ words, 143 words

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 14 records reviewed (Patient #12) did not have evidence that a Registered Nurse is designated to ensure continuous assessment of the patient and family’s needs and to coordinate activities with other members of the interdisciplinary group (IDG). The IDG must work together and is responsible for supervision of the care and service for each patient and family. Patient #12: The record indicated during the RN visit on 04/08/24 the patient complained of aching pain 8/10 on his neck and spine and on his left knee and ankle. He requested his pain frequency be adjusted. The record indicated an order for Oxycodone/Acetaminophen 10/325 one tab po QID on 04/08/24. There was no evidence of a nurse follow up to determine the effectiveness of this pain medication. The next visit was on 4/13/24 at the time of the pronouncement.”

    Rule L0540. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 277 words

    “Upon patient record review, 4 of 14 records reviewed (Patient #1, #3, #7, #9)did not have evidence in the patient record that the hospice has developed an individualized written plan of care for each patient. The plan of care must reflect 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 #1: The record indicated the patient was on Eliquis 5mg po BID and Plavix 75mg po QDAY. There was no evidence of a written plan of care addressing bleeding precautions. COS. In addition: The patient had diabetes. There was no individualized written plan of care to include a measurable goal to measure his blood sugar readings and what levels to report to the hospice nurse and or physician. COS. Patient #3: The record indicated a PT Evaluation was ordered on 7/10/24. There was no evidence of an individualized care plan reflecting the patient/family goals and interventions based on the need for Physical Therapy. COS. Patient #7: The record indicated the patient was on insulin Lantus Solo-Star 100U/ml pre filled prn solution for injection 25 U SQ at bedtime. There was no evidence of an individualized written plan to manage the blood sugar levels and what levels to report to the hospice nurse and or physician. COS. Patient #9: The record indicated the patient was prescribed Clindamycin Hydrochloride 300mg po Q6hours x 7 days for an infected toe. There was no evidence of an individualized written plan of care noting the patient’s progress towards outcome and goals. COS.”

    Rule L0545. Standard-level.

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

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 14 records reviewed (Patient #6) 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 #6: The record indicated the patient was prescribed Hydrocodone/Acetaminophen 5mg/325mg one tab po BID and Acetaminophen ES 500mg 2 tabs po Q6hours prn pain. The physicians order did not include the max amount of Acetaminophen in a 24 hour period. COS.”

    Rule L0549. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 144 words

    “Upon patient record review, 2 of 14 records reviewed (Patient #5, #6) did not have evidence that a revised plan of care includes information from the patient’s updated comprehensive assessment and must note the patient’s progress towards outcome/goals from the plan of care. Patient #5: The record indicated the patient had a care plan for high risk for falls and had an actual fall and a stat skull X-Ray on 5/9/24. There was no evidence the care plan was updated to note the patient’s progress towards outcome and goals. COS. Patient #6: The record indicted the patient had a care plan for high risk for infection and was prescribed Cipro 500mg po BID X 7 days and Bactrim DS X 7 days for a wound infection on 06/13/24. There was no evidence of the patients progress towards outcome/goals from the plan of care. COS.”

    Rule L0553. Standard-level.

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

    “Upon client record review, 2 of 14 records reviewed (Patient #3, #4) did not have evidence that the IDG ensures that the care and services are provided in accordance with the plan of care. Patient #3: The record indicated the chaplain made a visit on 8/9/24 and there was no order for this visit. Patient #4: The record indicated the RN was ordered to complete a visit every 14 days. The RN visit was due on 08/05/24 and there was no evidence of an RN visit until 08/07/24.”

    Rule L0555. Standard-level.

  • Education (42 CFR 418.60(c))

    “Upon observation, there was no evidence the hospice provides infection control education regarding basic and high-risk infection control procedures as appropriate to the care/services provided that is consistent with OSHA and CDC recommendations. During the home visit for patient #3 with the nurse, the nurse used the Sani Wipes to clean her assessment tools with her bare hands. It was marked on the container not to be used on skin and on the material safety data sheet.”

    Rule L0582. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 187 words

    “Upon patient record review, 2 of 14 records reviewed (Patient #1, #4) did not have evidence in the patient record that hospice aide assignments and duties are: • Assigned to a specific patient by a registered nurse that is a member of the interdisciplinary group • Written patient care instructions for a hospice aide 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 • There is evidence in the patient record that the plan of care; indicate what tasks are to be done by the Aide and the frequency of these tasks. The use of “PRN” or “per patient choice”, for any task, whether personal care or non-personal care tasks, are not acceptable Patient #1: The record indicated a Mechanical Lift was ordered on 07/17/24. There was no evidence the hospice aide care plan was updated to include the use of the mechanical lift. COS. Patient #4: The record indicated the patient was on Eliquis 5mg po BID. There was no evidence of bleeding precautions on the hospice aide care plan. COS.”

    Rule L0625. Standard-level.

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

    “Upon patient record review 1 of 14 records reviewed (Patient #3) 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 #3: The record indicated a hospice aide made a visit on 07/12/24. There was no evidence of an order for this visit.”

    Rule L0626. Standard-level.

  • Recertification of the terminal illness (42 CFR 418.102(c))

    The inspectors’ words, 166 words

    “Upon patient record review, 2 of 14 records reviewed (Patient #1, #9) did not have evidence that before the recertification period for each patient, the medical director or physician designee must review the patient’s clinical information and provide written documentation that it is anticipated that the patient’s life expectancy is 6 months or less. Patient #1: The record indicated the patient was in their 5th Benefit Period from 5/20/24 - 07/18/24. There was no evidence the Physician signed the recertification of terminal illness in a timely manner. The date he signed was on 05/31/24, there was no evidence of a verbal order documented by a registered nurse on this recertification. Patient #9: The record indicated the patient was in their 2nd Benefit Period from 08/22/24 to 11/19/24. There was no evidence the Physician signed the recertification of terminal illness in a timely manner. The date he signed was on 08/30/24, there was no evidence of a verbal order documented by a registered nurse on this recertification.”

    Rule L0668. Standard-level.

  • Content (42 CFR 418.104(a)(2))

    “Upon patient client record review, 14 of 14 records reviewed (Patient #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14) 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 #1-14: The record indicated each had a notice of election signed. There was no evidence the election statement contained the individual or representative acknowledged the identified attending physician was his or her choice.”

    Rule L0673. Standard-level.

  • Authentication (42 CFR 418.104(b))

    The inspectors’ words, 271 words

    “Upon patient client record review, 7 of 14 records reviewed (Patient #1, #2, #3, #7, #8, #9, #10) did not have evidence that all entries are legible, clear, complete, and appropriately authenticated and dated in accordance with the organizations policies and procedures and currently accepted standards of practice. Electronic signatures are acceptable as long the hospice is following appropriate safeguards to prevent unauthorized access to the patient records. Patient #1: The record indicated IDG occurred on 9/6/24. There was no evidence of the MD Signature and or RN Signature. COS. Patient #2: The record indicated IDG occurred on 9/6/24. There was no evidence of the MD Signature and or RN Signature. COS. Patient #3: The record indicated IDG occurred on 8/9/24. There was no evidence of the MD Signature. COS. Patient #7: The record indicated IDG occurred on 07/12/24. There was no evidence of the MD Signature and or RN Signature. COS. Patient #8: The record indicated IDG occurred on 06/14/24. There was no evidence of the MD Signature and or RN Signature. COS. Patient #9: The record indicated IDG occurred on 07/26/24. There was no evidence of the MD Signature. COS. Patient #10: The record indicated IDG occurred on 09/06/24. There was no evidence of the MD Signature and or RN Signature. COS. In addition, The record indicated the patients SOC date is 07/02/24 to this agency however, transferred from another agency in 2nd benefit period. The record indicated they would be in the 2nd benefit period however, listed dates as 07/02/24 to 09/15/24, this would be incorrect as the patient benefit period dates would not be affected for transferring.”

    Rule L0679. Standard-level.

The one inspection in the last three years
Inspections on record
DateVisitWhat the record says
Sep 11, 2024Initial inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care16 deficiencies cited

Is it certified?

  • Medicare-certified hospice since Sep 30, 2021.
  • 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): 3.7 nurse care minutes per routine home care day, 11.9% of skilled nursing minutes at weekends and a visit near death for 12.5% of patients who died.
  • Where its patients were cared for (Jan 1, 2024 to Dec 31, 2024): 99% at home, 1% in assisted living.
Source:

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

Staffing measures
MeasureThis provider
Nurse care minutes per routine home care day3.7 min
Skilled nursing minutes at weekends11.9%
Visits near death12.5% of patients who died

Who owns it?

  • CMS’s ownership file has no owners listed for this hospice.
Source:

CMS, Hospice All Owners and Hospice Enrollments. Released Sep 29, 2026. Updated quarterly.

What do families say?

  • CMS gives no family caregiver survey rating: “The number of cases is too small to report Star Ratings.”
  • CMS’s Hospice Care Index: 6 of 10 (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024).
  • 87.14% of patients were assessed on all seven of CMS’s measures at the start of care (Oct 1, 2024 to Sep 30, 2025).
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 5Not rated
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 threshold6 of 10

How does it compare nearby?

  • Of the 86 hospices CMS’s data show serving patients in ZIP code 89119, where this hospice’s office is, the middle number of deficiencies cited in the last three years was 6; this one had 16.
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.