Hearth Record

Eternity Care Hospice

A hospice in Las Vegas, Nevada 89146

2675 S. Jones Blvd. Suite 104, Las Vegas, Nevada 89146. (702) 476-9542.

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 27 deficiencies in 2 months of the last 36. Last cited Nov 2025. 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?

27 deficiencies cited in the last three years

The middle of the 84 hospices serving ZIP code 89146 had 6.

The last inspection on record was on Nov 13, 2025: an initial inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care.

3 deficiencies 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

27 deficiencies in 2 months of the last 36. Last cited Nov 2025. Most serious: Condition-level. The last 3 years, to Oct 27, 2026.

27 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.

Nov 13, 2025: initial inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care1 deficiency
  • Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c))

    The inspectors’ words, 109 words

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 11 (Patient #11) 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 #11: There was evidence in the medical record the patient had a POLST indicating DNR. The physician wrote an order “full code”. This was corrected on site with a physician order for DNR.”

    Rule L0545. Standard-level.

Mar 4, 2025: initial inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care26 deficiencies
  • Patients rights (42 CFR 418.52)

    “Condition of Participation: Patient’s Rights. L500”

    Rule L0500. Condition-level.

  • Hospice aide and homemaker services (42 CFR 418.76)

    “Condition of Participation: Hospice Aide and Homemaker Services. L607”

    Rule L0607. Condition-level.

  • Clinical records (42 CFR 418.104)

    “Condition of Participation: Clinical Records.”

    Rule L0670. Condition-level.

  • Notice of rights and responsibilities (42 CFR 418.52(a)(2))

    “Upon patient record review, 7 of 7 (Patient #1, 2, 6, 7) did not have evidence that the hospice informed and provided written information to the patient concerning its policies on advance directives, including a description of applicable state law. Patients #1, 2, 6, 7: Admission Consents not available to surveyor upon start of survey.”

    Rule L0503. Standard-level.

  • Notice of rights and responsibilities (42 CFR 418.52(a)(3))

    “Upon patient record review, 4 of 7 (Patient #1, 2, 6, 7) 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, 2, 6, 7: Admission consent forms were not available in EMR and/or hard copy upon start of survey.”

    Rule L0504. Standard-level.

  • Exercise of rights/respect for proprty/person (42 CFR 418.52(b)(3))

    “Upon patient record review, 4 of 7 (Patient #1, 2, 6, 7) did not have evidence that if a state court has not adjudged a patient incompetent, any legal representative designated by the patient in accordance with state law may exercise the patient’s rights to the extent allowed by state law. Patients #1, 2, 6, 7: Admission consent forms were not available in EMR and/or hard copy upon start of survey.”

    Rule L0507. Standard-level.

  • Rights of the patient (42 CFR 418.52(c)(4))

    The inspectors’ words, 93 words

    “Upon patient record review, 6 of 7 (Patient #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) did not have evidence that the patient chooses a health care provider, including an attending physician. Patients #1, 2, 6, 7: Admission consent forms were not available in EMR and/or hard copy by midday Day 1 of survey. Patient #4: Election statement options (My choice of attending physician is and I do not wish to choose) are both left blank. Patient #5: No election statement included in documents provided (with patients choice to choose or not choose physician).”

    Rule L0515. Standard-level.

  • Rights of the patient (42 CFR 418.52(c)(5))

    “Upon patient record review, 4 of 7 (Patient #1, 2, 6, 7) did not have evidence of the appropriate documentation for release of confidential information. Patients #1, 2, 6, 7: Admission consent forms were not available in EMR and/or hard copy upon start of survey.”

    Rule L0516. Standard-level.

  • Rights of the patient (42 CFR 418.52(c)(7))

    “Upon patient record review, 4 of 7 (Patient #1, 2, 6, 7) did not have evidence that the patient received information about the services covered under the hospice benefit. Patients #1, 2, 6, 7: Admission consent forms were not available in EMR and/or hard copy upon start of survey.”

    Rule L0518. Standard-level.

  • Rights of the patient (42 CFR 418.52(c)(8))

    “Upon patient record review, 4 of 7 (Patient #1, 2, 6, 7) did not have evidence that the patient received information about the scope of services that the hospice will provide and specific limitations on those services. Patients #1, 2, 6, 7: Admission consent forms were not available in EMR and/or hard copy upon start of survey.”

    Rule L0519. Standard-level.

  • Initial assessment (42 CFR 418.54(a))

    “Upon patient record review 1 of 7 (Patient #4) did not have evidence that the hospice Registered Nurse must complete an initial assessment within 48 hours after the election of hospice care in accordance with §418.24 Patient #4: There is no election statement to clearly determine date of election. The assessment is consistent with signature dates.”

    Rule L0522. Standard-level.

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

    “Upon patient record review 1 of 7 (Patient #6) 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: Psychosocial assessment not completed within 5 days by MSW and not completed by RN.”

    Rule L0523. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 118 words

    “Upon patient record review, 2 of 7 (Patient #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 #3: Bereavement assessment by SC is incomplete with comment that patient has no family. However, there are numerous comments in EMR documenting that the patient signed consents with family around him. Patient #4: No documented initial bereavement assessment.”

    Rule L0531. Standard-level.

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

    “Upon observation, there was no evidence the hospice has an interdisciplinary group (IDG) or groups composed of individuals who work together to meet the physical, medical, psychosocial, emotional, and spiritual needs of the hospice patients and families facing terminal illness and bereavement. Interdisciplinary group members must provide the care and services offered by the hospice, and the group, in its entirety, must supervise the care and services. Patient #3: Three IDG meetings (1/24, 2/7, 2/21/25) with no evidence of MSW signature to verify participation.”

    Rule L0539. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 114 words

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 7 (Patient #2) 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 #2: There are problems for weakness and musculoskeletal, but personal care needs are not addressed in interventions and no reference to assistance needed and to be provided by the time service initiated and aide services were being provided.”

    Rule L0545. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 184 words

    “Upon client record review, 3 of 7 (Patient #5,6,7) did not have evidence that the IDG in collaboration with the attending physician reviewed, revised and documents the individualized plan as frequently as the patient’s condition requires but no less frequently then every 15 calendar days. Patient #5: 11/29/24 IDG has no RN note or signature and 12/13/24 no evidence of SC signature to verify participation or revised and updated individualized POC. Patient #6: Adm 12/13-12/20. 12/27/24 IDG Meeting (only IDG) narrative entries for RN, MSW, SC imply all disciplines made visits. There are no signatures for any disciplines for this IDG meeting. There are no notes in EMR for MSW, SC to support that service was provided as noted in IDG. (The only visit note in record is 12/19 for RN) Patient #7: Adm 11/26-12/20/24. 11/29/24 IDG: meeting narrative entries for RN, MSW, SC imply all disciplines made visits. There are no signatures for any disciplines for 11/29/24 IDG. There are no notes to support that MSW and SC services were actually provided. Meeting dates 12/7 and 12/14/24 had no signatures for any disciplines.”

    Rule L0552. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 170 words

    “Upon client record review, 4 of 7 (Patient #3, 4, 5, 6) did not have evidence that the IDG ensures that the care and services are provided in accordance with the plan of care. Patient #3: SN ordered frequency is documented as 1 every recert and 2 prn. RN visits made 1/24/25, 31, 2/6, 13, 20, 27 (weekly). Patient #4: SN order for 1/wk and 3 prn is only documented discipline order. No orders for MSW. However, MSW made visit 11/9/24 documented as routine monthly visit, when it was her first visit to assess new admission, 12/12/24 MSW note incomplete. Patient #5: MSW frequency 1/week and 1 prn throughout admission. SW visits only made monthly (11/9 was initial assessment documented in assessment). 12/12/24, 1/9/25. SC saw patient 2/3/25, but visit frequency was “SC 0 patient declined” throughout admission. Patient #6: POC had no visit frequencies. RN assessed patient 12/13 and revisit 12/19/24 with no order for the latter. 12/19/24 note with time 415-515 is incomplete and not signed by clinician.”

    Rule L0555. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 237 words

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 7 (Patient #2) 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 #2: Patient home visit with Hospice Aide initiated for surveyor observation. During interview, Hospice Aide reported that she had no care plan, as “Hospice MD is not ready yet.” Inquired how aide knows what tasks to perform and she went on to list tasks. Asked how often she sees the patient and she said 2x/week Monday and Friday and she had seen patient before. Upon return to office, there was Hospice Aide assignment sheet in the EMR dated 3/1/25, but the aide apparently did not have access at the time of visit. There is no order for the Hospice Aide Visit at the time care was initiated and/or after visit completed.”

    Rule L0625. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 129 words

    “Upon patient record review 1 of 7 (Patient #2) 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 #2: Patient home visit with Hospice Aide initiated for surveyor observation. During interview, Hospice Aide reported that she had no care plan, as “Hospice MD is not ready yet.” Inquired how aide knows what tasks to perform and she went on to list tasks, with no reference to RN guidance. Asked how often she sees the patient and she said 2x/week Monday and Friday and she had seen patient before.”

    Rule L0626. Standard-level.

  • Initial certification of terminal illness (42 CFR 418.102(b))

    The inspectors’ words, 143 words

    “Upon patient record review, 5 of 7 (Patient #3, 4, 5, 6, 7) did not have evidence that the medical director or physician designee provides written certification that it is anticipated that the patient’s life expectancy is 6 months or less if the illness runs its normal course. The physician must consider the following when making this determination: • The primary terminal condition • Related diagnosis • Current subjective and objective medical findings • Current medication and treatment orders • Information about the medical management of any of the patient’s conditions unrelated to the terminal illness Patient #3: Physician narrative “Patient is AXOX3 able to make needs known. She signed her own consents with her family around. Patient has fair appetite.” Patient #4: Initial CTI narrative only includes diagnoses and codes Patient #5, 6, 7 : Initial CTI includes patient age, dx only.”

    Rule L0667. Standard-level.

  • Content (42 CFR 418.104(a)(2))

    The inspectors’ words, 131 words

    “Upon patient client record review, 6 of 7 (Patient #1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7) 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 Patients #1, 2, 6, 7: Admission consent forms were not available in EMR and/or hard copy by midday Day 1 of survey. Patient #4: There is no election statement to include choice of physician and also no effective date of election Patient #5: The election statement section for choice of MD is left blank for I do not wish and my choice of attending physician is blank. The choice of receiving or not receiving addendum section is blank. The addendum form is blank other than signature.”

    Rule L0673. Standard-level.

  • Content (42 CFR 418.104(a)(6))

    “Upon patient client record review, 6 of 7 (Patient #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) did not have evidence that each patient record contains Advance Directives. Patients #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: Identified as DNR, but no supportive documentation available in EMR.”

    Rule L0677. Standard-level.

  • Authentication (42 CFR 418.104(b))

    The inspectors’ words, 288 words

    “Upon patient client record review, 7 of 7 (Patient #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) 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. Patients #1, 2, 3: The Patient Concern / Grievance Process phone tree in the patient admission booklets in homes for Patient Visit 2 and 3 (Patients 1 and 3) had Eternity contact information in the heading, however a different hospice name and number was listed at the top of the phone tree. (The admission packet in the office is accurate). Patients #3, 4, 5: Admission Consent including Advanced Directives section has questions with yes or no answer and questions are unanswered. Patient #3: Patient admitted 1/17/25. IDT 1/24/25 IDG Meeting SC documented a visit, however, there is no documentation in the EMR regarding an assessment or a visit note by the SC and there is no physician order for SC services. SN Visit note narratives are duplicated 1/24, 1/31, 2/6. 2/13, 2/20, 2/27/25, to include “Patient signed her own consents with her family around”. Patient #4: MSW made visits 11/9/24 documented as “routine monthly visit,” when it was her first visit to assess new admission Patient #5: DC summary not signed. Patient #6: Admitted 12/13/24-12/20/24. 12/27/24 (only IDG) meeting says all disciplines made visits, but no notes to support visits made by MSW, SC. Patient #7: Adm 11/26-12/20/24. 11/29/24 IDG: meeting narrative entries for RN, MSW, SC imply all disciplines made visits, but no notes to support visits made by MSW, SC.”

    Rule L0679. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 98 words

    “Upon client record review, 4 of 7 (Patient #4, 5, 6, 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 #4, 5: DC Summary says DNR and/or Advance Directives sent, but there are no copies in record and/or available to surveyor that might have been available to send. Patient #6, 7: No documentation to verify any document(s) sent.”

    Rule L0683. Standard-level.

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

    “Upon client record review, 4 of 7 (Patient #4, 5, 6, 7) did not have evidence that the discharge summary includes all required information. Patient #4, 5, 6, 7: Live discharge records do not include discharge summary that includes comprehensive summary of patient’s stay.”

    Rule L0684. Standard-level.

  • Retrieval of clinical records (42 CFR 418.104(f))

    “Upon observation, there was no evidence the patient record, whether hard copy or in electronic form, is made readily available on request by an appropriate authority. Patients #1, 2, 6, 7: Admission Consents not available to surveyor upon start of survey.”

    Rule L0685. Standard-level.

All 2 inspections in the last three years
Inspections on record
DateVisitWhat the record says
Nov 13, 2025Initial inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care1 deficiency cited
Mar 4, 2025Initial inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care26 deficiencies cited

Is it certified?

  • Medicare-certified hospice since Nov 13, 2025.
  • 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?

  • 5 owners or officers are people: Maria Hazel J Domingo (managing employee (under contract), 100%); Maria Hazel J Domingo (owns 5% or more directly, 100%); Maria Hazel J Domingo (holds 5% or more security interest, 100%); Maria Hazel J Domingo (corporate officer, 100%); Maria Hazel J Domingo (corporate director, 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 84 hospices CMS’s data show serving patients in ZIP code 89146, where this hospice’s office is, the middle number of deficiencies cited in the last three years was 6; this one had 27.
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.