Hearth Record

Lifecare Hospice

A hospice in Las Vegas, Nevada 89144

1180 N Town Center Dr #100, Las Vegas, Nevada 89144. (725) 205-3442.

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 19 deficiencies in 2 months of the last 36. Last cited Dec 2024. Most serious: Condition-level. Every month

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

What these words mean3
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.

What did inspectors find?

19 deficiencies cited in the last three years

The middle of the 40 hospices serving ZIP code 89144 had 7.

The last inspection on record was on Dec 5, 2024: an initial inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care.

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

19 deficiencies in 2 months of the last 36. Last cited Dec 2024. Most serious: Condition-level. The last 3 years, to Oct 27, 2026.

19 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 5, 2024: initial inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care4 deficiencies
  • Timeframe for completion of assessment (42 CFR 418.54(b))

    The inspectors’ words, 124 words

    “Upon patient record review 2 of 5 (Patient #3, #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 #3: The record indicated the start of care was on 05/24/24. The nurse made a referral for spiritual counselor /bereavement coordinator to complete the spiritual assessment. There was no evidence of a spiritual comprehensive assessment until 6/4/24. Patient #4: The record indicated the start of care was on 05/20/24. The nurse indicated a referral for spiritual counselor /bereavement coordinator as the “patient/family requested clergy”. There was no evidence of a spiritual comprehensive assessment until 05/31/24.”

    Rule L0523. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 189 words

    “Upon patient record review, 4 of 5 (Patient #2, #3, #4, #5) 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 #2: The record indicated the patient was admitted on 06/12/24, there was no evidence of a comprehensive bereavement risk assessment being completed within 5 calendar days. The assessment was completed on 7/23/24. Patient #3: The record indicated the patient was admitted on 05/24/24, there was no evidence of a comprehensive bereavement risk assessment being completed within 5 calendar days. The assessment was completed on 06/04/24. Patient #4: The record indicated the patient was admitted on 05/20/24, there was no evidence of a comprehensive bereavement risk assessment. Patient #5: The record indicated the patient was admitted on 03/21/24, there was no evidence of a comprehensive bereavement risk assessment.”

    Rule L0531. Standard-level.

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

    “Upon client record review, 1 of 5 (Patient #2) did not have evidence that the IDG ensures that the care and services are provided in accordance with the plan of care. Patient #2: The record indicated a MSW 1 X per benefit period. A BSW social worker made all visits. COS.”

    Rule L0555. Standard-level.

  • Content (42 CFR 418.104(a)(2))

    The inspectors’ words, 164 words

    “Upon patient client record review, 5 of 5 (Patient #1, #2, #3, #4, #5) 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: The record indicated the patient/authorized representative elected to received the non covered items by hospice but did not receive a copy. COS. Patient #2: The record indicated the patient/authorized representative elected to received the non covered items by hospice but did not receive a copy. COS. Patient #3: The record indicated the patient/authorized representative elected to received the non covered items by hospice but did not receive a copy. COS. Patient #4: The record indicated the patient/authorized representative elected to received the non covered items by hospice but did not receive a copy. COS. Patient #5: The record indicated the patient/authorized representative elected to received the non covered items by hospice but did not receive a copy. COS.”

    Rule L0673. Standard-level.

Sep 25, 2024: initial inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care15 deficiencies
  • IDG, care planning, coordination of services (42 CFR 418.56)

    “Condition of Participation: Interdisciplinary Group, Care Planning, and Coordination of Services. L536”

    Rule L0536. Condition-level.

  • EP Testing Requirements (42 CFR 418.113(d)(2))

    “Upon observation, there was no evidence the agency has conducted exercises to test the emergency plan every two years.”

    Rule E0039. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 93 words

    “Upon patient record review 3 of 7 (Patient #1,#3,#4) 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#1: There is not evidence of a spiritual or psychosocial assessment completed. The nurse only answered HIS questions on admit visit. Patient#3,#4: There is no evidence of a spiritual assessment being completed. On admit visit nurse only answered HIS questions.”

    Rule L0524. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 106 words

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 7 (Patient #3) 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#3: The record indicates on 9/3/24 LPN requested Calmoseptine for rash under breast in communication note. On 9/14/24 LPN documented a communication note to follow up on order, Calmoseptine still not listed on MAR. COS”

    Rule L0530. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 219 words

    “Upon patient record review, 4 of 7 (Patient #1,#2,#3,#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#1,#4: Upon review of the record, the bereavement assessment was done by the nurse, however it was incomplete. No primary bereaved was indicated. There was no information on what was assessed or any needs, concerns or cultural factors. Nurse checked non for both patient and caregiver. No narrative was present to indicate what was assessed. COS. Patient#2: The record indicates the initial bereavement assessment was assigned to nurse at admit visit, However it was incomplete. Documentation indicates 2 boxes were checked for the assessment. For patient the box denial of illness was checked, and for caregiver the none box was checked. Patient#3: On 5/24 nurse was assigned bereavement assessment. There was nothing checked or indicated for the caregiver. For patient document that patient stated she was not going to die and has anxiety. There is no other documentation for this assessment.”

    Rule L0531. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 164 words

    “Upon patient record review, 2 of 7 (Patient #1,2) 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#1: The record indicates the patient called in on 9/20/24 to report a chest pain episode. Note state patient has no nitroglycerin and episode lasted a short time. LPN noted this was communicated to RN. There is no evidence of any follow-up with patient. Administrator indicates that MD was notified and called in nitroglycerin. There is no evidence of this documented in chart. COS Patient#2: The record indicates on 6/26/24, the RN uploaded a picture of wound to chart, no measurements noted. A physician evaluated and measured on 7/24. On 8/1 nurse documented wound healed. No other assessments or measurements noted in chart.”

    Rule L0540. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 227 words

    “Upon patient record review, 4 of 7 (Patient #1,#2,#3,#5) 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 indicates the patient was admitted with atherosclerotic heart disease, in addition is a high risk for falls, has nutritional needs and concerns per the nurse assessment. There is no evidence of problems, interventions, or goals related to these patient issues related to the terminal illness. COS. Patient#2: The record indicates has diagnosis of diabetes type II, schizophrenia, and HTN. Patient is actively taking medication for these diagnosis. There is no evidence that the plan of care reflected problems, interventions, or goals related to these diagnosis. Patient#3: The record indicates the patient is currently taking Keppra for seizure disorder. There is no evidence that the plan of care reflects problems, interventions, or goals related to seizure disorder. COS. Patient#5: The record indicates that the patient has dysphagia and a foley. There is no evidence that the plan of care reflects problems interventions or goals related the dysphagia or the foley.”

    Rule L0545. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 151 words

    “Upon patient record review, 3 of 7 (Patient #2,#3,#7) 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 record indicated for Calmoseptine on 9/12. There is no indication of a specified area for application. Corrected on site. Patient#3: The record indicated on 6/12 for lidocaine patch 50mg 1 every 12hours. There is no indication on specific area to apply the patch. The record indicates for Nitro 0.4mg tab 1 SL prn angina. There is no instruction on taking subsequent doses or a max of 3 doses. The record indicates for Triamcinolone acetonide 0.1 mg cream topical. There is no specified area of application noted. Corrected on site. Patient#7 : The record indicates for Zofran 4mg 1 tab every 6 hours prn. There is no route noted. Corrected on site.”

    Rule L0549. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 195 words

    “Upon patient record review, 5 of 7 (Patient #1,#2,#3,#4,#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 equipment and supply needs. Patient#1: The record indicates the patient requires the use of a walker and cane. There is no evidence of this equipment on the plan of care. COS. Patient#2: The record indicated patient required use of bed, half rails, shower chair, walker, incontinence supplies, and wheelchair. There is no evidence of items on the plan if care. COS. Patient#3: The record indicated for incontinence supplies (panty liners), bed, and half rails. There is no evidence of the half rails or the panty liners on the plan of care. COS. Patient#4: The record indicates the patient requires the use of cane walker and shower chair. There is no evidence of these items on the plan of care. Patient#5: The record indicates the patient requires the use of wound care supplies, oxygen concentrator, wheelchair, bed, OTB table, shower chair, and commode. Other than the oxygen concentrator, there is no evidence of the other items on the plan of care.”

    Rule L0550. Standard-level.

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

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 7 (Patient #2) 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#2: The record indicates physician evaluated sacral wound on 7/23/24. There is no evidence of plan of care being updated. COS.”

    Rule L0553. Standard-level.

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

    “Upon client record review, 1 of 7 (Patient #4) did not have evidence that the IDG ensures that the care and services are provided in accordance with the plan of care. Patient#4: The record indicated a nurse visit frequency of 1 time a week. The week of 6/12/24 visits were made on 6/12 and 6/13. The week of 6/26, visits were made on 6/26 and 6/27. COS.”

    Rule L0555. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 118 words

    “Upon patient record review 1 of 7 (Patient #5) did not have evidence that the IDG ensures that the care and services provided are based on all assessments of the patient and family needs. Patient#5: The record indicates on 4/11/24 the LPN documented a communication note stating patient/family (Bob) requesting MSW to assist with needed support and light housekeeping. There is no evidence of any follow-up or if MSW contacted patient/family per their request. COS. The record indicates on 3/25 a referral was sent to Heal Well Solutions for a wound evaluation. There is no evidence of any follow-up or if referral was completed; per the administrator this was completed but they never obtained documentation from Heal Well.”

    Rule L0556. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 101 words

    “Upon patient record review 1 of 7 (Patient #1) 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#1: The aide plan of care indicated frequency of 1 time a week. There is no evidence of any aide visits documented since admit on 9/7/24. Per administrator the patient refused the visits. There is no evidence of missed visits documented in chart.”

    Rule L0626. Standard-level.

  • Content (42 CFR 418.104(a)(6))

    “Upon patient record review, 2 of 7 (Patient #2,#3) did not have evidence that each patient record contains Advance Directives. Patient#2,#3: The admission documentation indicates patient has legal documentation indicating patient’s wishes to be a full code. There is no evidence of this documentation in the patient chart. Document was found in patient home.”

    Rule L0677. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 136 words

    “Upon client record review, 2 of 7 (Patient #5,#7) did not have evidence that if a patient revokes the election of hospice care or is discharged from hospice in accordance with §418.26, the hospice must forward to the patient’s attending physician: • A copy of the hospice discharge summary • The patient’s clinical record, if requested Patient#5: The record indicates on 5/30/24 patient was discharged due to patient improved and no longer meets criteria. There is no evidence of coordination of care, or discharge summary being communicated to community physician. Patient#7: The record indicates patient revoked on 12/1/23 to seek aggressive treatment at a hospital. There is no evidence of coordination of care or discharge summary being sent to hospital. The administrator added late note that family would not disclose which hospital patient was taken to.”

    Rule L0683. Standard-level.

All 2 inspections in the last three years
Inspections on record
DateVisitWhat the record says
Dec 5, 2024Initial inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care4 deficiencies cited
Sep 25, 2024Initial inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care15 deficiencies cited

Is it certified?

  • Medicare-certified hospice since Dec 20, 2024.
  • CMS doesn’t list its type of ownership.
  • Cited at in the last three years: it didn’t meet a whole condition of Medicare’s rules.
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?

  • CMS hasn’t published nursing time from Medicare claims for this hospice.
Source:

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

Who owns it?

  • 4 owners or officers are people: Kathleen Maravillas (managing employee (under contract), 100%); Kathleen Maravillas (owns 5% or more directly, 100%); Kathleen Maravillas (managing employee (on the payroll), 100%); Kathleen Maravillas (runs it (operational or managerial control), 100%).
  • 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?

  • CMS gives no family caregiver survey rating: “The number of cases is too small to report Star Ratings.”
  • CMS gives no Hospice Care Index for this hospice.
Source:

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

How does it compare nearby?

  • Of the 40 hospices CMS’s data show serving patients in ZIP code 89144, where this hospice’s office is, the middle number of deficiencies cited in the last three years was 7; this one had 19.
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.