Hearth Record

Heartland Hospice

A hospice in Columbus, Ohio 43230

4565 Beecher Crossing North, Suite D, Columbus, Ohio 43230. (614) 840-9856.

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 25 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 mean4
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.

What did inspectors find?

25 deficiencies cited in the last three years

The middle of the 26 hospices serving ZIP code 43230 had 5.

The last inspection on record was on Nov 12, 2025: a follow-up 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

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

25 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 12, 2025: follow-up inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care2 deficiencies
  • Approach to service delivery (42 CFR 418.56(a)(1))

    The inspectors’ words, 101 words

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 5 (Patient #3) 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 3: The medical record indicated that the patient has an active stage 4 wound to the coccyx. No evidence that the wound was measured for the week of 10/19/2025. Gentiva policy is for wound measurements to be completed weekly.”

    Rule L0540. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 124 words

    “Upon patient record review, 2 of 5 (Patient #1,3) 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 1: The RN documentation indicated that the patient was using oxygen at PRN 2LNC. No evidence that an order was received for the oxygen at 2LNC. The current order is for oxygen continuously at 1LNC. COS - New oxygen order written to update during survey. Patient 3: The plan of care has duplicate orders for oxybutynin both written as 5mg 1 tablet 3 times a day. One written on 10/05/2025 and the other was written on 10/15/2025. COS - New clarification order rec’d during survey.”

    Rule L0549. Standard-level.

Sep 19, 2025: complaint inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care10 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. From a complaint.

  • Exercise of rights/respect for proprty/person (42 CFR 418.52(b)(1)(iii))

    The inspectors’ words, 114 words

    “Upon observation, there was no evidence the patient has the right to voice grievances/complaints regarding treatment or care that is (or fails to be) furnished and lack of respect of property by anyone who is furnishing care/service on behalf of the hospice. Patient 3: The medical record contained social worker documentation 2/4/25 with attempt to schedule visit for discharge paperwork to be signed. During the phone call the daughter denied having any knowledge of plan to discharge and refused visit and signing of paperwork, with notes of concern for continuity of care. The social worker stated the executive director to be notified. There was no evidence of investigation of alleged violation of discharge notification.”

    Rule L0505. Standard-level. From a complaint.

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

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 5 (Patient #2) did not have evidence in the patient record that a review was completed of all prescription and non-prescription medications. Patient 2: The medication profile contained duplicative Tegretol listings for 200 mg 1 tablet daily and 2 tablets at bedtime. There were no instructions for spacing administration or if to be taken together. Corrected on site with order clarification and update to medication profile.”

    Rule L0530. Standard-level. From a complaint.

  • Plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(b))

    The inspectors’ words, 114 words

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 5 (Patient #3) did not have evidence that each patient and family received education and training provided as appropriate to their responsibilities for the care and services identified in the plan of care. Patient 3: There was no evidence the patient/family received education and training regarding responsibilities included with plan to discharge. There was no documentation regarding education for need to follow up with a community physician for further medical treatment to assist with post discharge continuity of care. IDG nursing documentation 2/19/25 after discharge states patient agreed to a physician as primary care provider, however no evidence of documentation of the continuity of care prior to discharge.”

    Rule L0544. Standard-level. From a complaint.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 108 words

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 5 (Patient #4) 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 4: The medical record contained nursing documentation upon admission identifying patient has an ostomy. There was no evidence of problems, goals, and interventions related to ostomy included in the plan of care.”

    Rule L0545. Standard-level. From a complaint.

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

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 5 (Patient #2) did not have evidence the plan of care must include all services necessary for the palliation and management of the terminal illness and related conditions, including medications and treatments. Patient 2: The medical record contained duplicative Tegretol orders for 200 mg 1 tablet daily and 2 tablets at bedtime. There were no instructions for spacing administration or if to be taken together. Corrected on site with order clarification.”

    Rule L0549. Standard-level. From a complaint.

  • Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(6))

    The inspectors’ words, 104 words

    “Upon client record review, 1 of 5 (Patient #3) did not have evidence that the plan of care included IDG’s documentation of the patient’s or families level of understanding, involvement and agreement with the plan of care. Patient 3: The medical record contained physician documentation during IDG 1/15/25 identifying need to investigate eligibility and discharge planning. There was no evidence communication with the patient/family regarding possibility of discharge until 2/4/25 social worker documentation regarding attempt to schedule appointment for signature of Notification of Medicare Non-Coverage. 2/4/25 social worker documentation stated the daughter denied having any knowledge regarding plan to discharge and refused the visit.”

    Rule L0551. Standard-level. From a complaint.

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

    “Upon client record review, 1 of 5 (Patient #3) 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 3: There was no evidence of the plan of care updated to include discharge plan with goals and interventions.”

    Rule L0552. Standard-level. From a complaint.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 103 words

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 5 (Patient #3) 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 3: There was no evidence of steps taken to determine eligibility or decision for discharge after physician IDG note 1/15/25 to reference decision tree to be done for extended prognosis. IDG nursing note 2/5 states decision tree in process. There was no evidence of a nursing visit after 1/29/25 and the documentation 1/29/25 does not address plan to discharge. Patient was discharged”

    Rule L0553. Standard-level. From a complaint.

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

    “Upon client record review, 1 of 5 (Patient #1) did not have evidence that the IDG ensures that the care and services are provided in accordance with the plan of care. Patient 1: The medical record contained plan of care orders to replace foley catheter the first week of each month. There was no evidence of a catheter change since at least 8/12/25.”

    Rule L0555. Standard-level. From a complaint.

Sep 18, 2025: reaccreditation inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care13 deficiencies
  • Content of comprehensive assessment (42 CFR 418.54(c))

    “Upon patient record review, 2 of 23 (Patients #7,#8) 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. Patients 7,8: There was no evidence of a comprehensive spiritual assessment. Assessment completed during survey.”

    Rule L0524. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 504 words

    “Upon patient record review, 9 of 23 (Patients #3,#5,#6,#12,#13,#15,#16,#17,#18) did not have evidence in the patient record that a review was completed of all prescription and non-prescription medications. Patient 3: Upon medication reconciliation during home visit, the facility and hospice medication profiles did not match. The facility profile did not contain a hydrocodone-acetaminophen PRN that was on the hospice profile. Corrected on site with order clarification and medication profile update. Patient 5: Upon medication reconciliation during home visit, the facility and hospice medication profiles did not match. The facility profile did not contain lorazepam and morphine PRNs, and had instructions for milk of magnesia PRN instead of hospice instructions for scheduled daily. Corrected on site with order clarification and medication profile update. Patient 6: Upon medication reconciliation during home visit, the facility and hospice medication profiles did not match. The facility profile did not contain lorazepam scheduled at bedtime that was on the hospice profile, did contain lorazepam PRN that was not on hospice profile, contained instructions for 15ml Mucinex instead of 20ml listed on hospice, and contained morphine scheduled twice daily that was not on hospice. Corrected on site with order clarification and medication profile update. Patient 12: The medication profile contained Miralax oral powder with no instructions to mix with a diluent. Corrected on site with order clarification and medication profile update. Patient 13: The medication profile contained diclofenac topical gel with no area defined for administration. Corrected on site with order clarification and medication profile update. Patient 15: The medication profile contained duplicative listings for Preparation H with differing concentrates. Corrected on site with order clarification and medication profile update. Patient 16: Upon medication reconciliation during home visit, the facility and hospice medication profiles did not match. The facility profile did not have lorazepam that was on hospice profile, facility had hyoscyamine every 24 hours PRN instead of hospice instructions every 2 hours PRN, facility had levetiracetam 250 mg twice daily instead of hospice instructions for once daily. Facility had oxycodone every 4 hours PRN instead of hospice instructions every 6 hours PRN, facility had oxygen 2LPM instead of hospice instructions for 2-4LPM, and hospice also had mucinex that was not on the facility profile. Corrected on site with order clarification and medication profile update. Patient 17: Upon medication reconciliation during home visit, the facility and hospice medication profiles did not match. The facility profile contained acetaminophen suppository every 24 hours PRN instead of hospice instructions every 6 hours PRN, facility profile had buspirone 1 tab instead of hospice 1.5 tabs, and facility had clonidine patch changes on Tuesday instead of hospice instructions for Monday. Corrected on site with order clarification and medication profile update. Patient 18: Upon medication reconciliation during home visit, the ALF had multiple medications not listed on the hospice profile including: haldol 0.5ml PRN, quetiapine daily, Miralax PRN, guaifenesin PRN, and furosemide daily. The ALF also had senna-s 2 tabs daily instead of senna 1 tab daily. Corrected on site with order clarification and medication profile update.”

    Rule L0530. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 94 words

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 23 (Patient #18) 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 18: There was no evidence of a bereavement assessment. Assessment completed during survey on 9/17/25.”

    Rule L0531. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 93 words

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 23 (Patient #7) 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 7: The medical record contained nursing documentation 9/3/25 identifying patient wound to left great toe. There was no evidence of weekly measurements per agency policy. First wound measurement was completed 9/15/25.”

    Rule L0540. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 212 words

    “Upon patient record review, 3 of 23 (Patients #11,#13,#14) 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: The medical record contained nursing documentation identifying patient use of oxygen. There was no evidence of problems, goals, and interventions related to the need for oxygen included in the plan of care. Corrected on site with update to plan of care. Patient 13: The medical record contained nursing documentation since admission identifying patient issues with nausea and vomiting. There was no evidence of problems, goals, and interventions related to gastrointestinal dysfunction included in the plan of care. Corrected on site with update to plan of care. Patient 14: The medical record contained nursing documentation since admission identifying blood pressure cannot be taken on the patient’s right arm. There was no evidence of problems, goals, and interventions to outline limiting factors included in the plan of care. Corrected on site with update to plan of care.”

    Rule L0545. Standard-level.

  • Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(2))

    The inspectors’ words, 154 words

    “Upon patient record review, 2 of 23 (Patients #3,#13) did not have evidence the plan of care must includes all services necessary for the palliation and management of the terminal illness and related conditions, including the following: • A detailed statement of the scope and frequency of services necessary to meet the specific patient and family needs • The IDG demonstrates a proactive approach in developing each patient’s plan of care by planning ahead for anticipated patient changes and needs. Decisions should reflect the patient/family preferences rather than be solely a response to a crisis. Patient 3: The medical record contained an order for social work visits 4 PRN. There was no evidence of an anticipated need for visits. Corrected on site with order clarification. Patient 13: The medical record contained an order for spiritual care 2 PRN. There was no evidence of an anticipated need for visits. Corrected on site with order clarification.”

    Rule L0547. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 180 words

    “Upon patient record review, 4 of 23 (Patients #3,#12,#13,#18) 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 3: Upon medication reconciliation during home visit, the facility and hospice medication orders did not match. The hospice did not have an order for hydrocodone-acetaminophen PRN. Corrected on site with order clarification. Patient 12: The medical record contained an order for Miralax oral powder with no instructions to mix with a diluent. Corrected on site with order clarification. Patient 13: The medical record contained an order for diclofenac topical gel with no area defined for administration. Corrected on site with order clarification. Patient 18: Upon medication reconciliation during home visit, the ALF had multiple medications that hospice did not have orders for including: haldol 0.5ml PRN, quetiapine daily, Miralax PRN, guaifenesin PRN, and furosemide daily. The ALF also had an order for senna-s 2 tabs daily instead of hospice order for senna 1 tab daily. Corrected on site with order clarification.”

    Rule L0549. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 193 words

    “Upon patient record review, 4 of 23 (Patients #4,#13,#15,#16) 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 4: The medical record contained nursing documentation since admission identifying patient use of a walker. There was no evidence of an order for the walker included in the plan of care. Corrected on site with receipt of order. Patient 13: The medical record contained nursing documentation 9/9/25 identifying patient use of a walker. There was no evidence of an order for the walker included in the plan of care. Corrected on site with receipt of order. Patient 15: The medical record contained nursing documentation since admission identifying patient use of bedrails. There was no evidence of an order for the rails included in the plan of care. Corrected on site with receipt of order. Patient 16: The medical record contained nursing documentation since admission identifying patient use of a wheelchair. There was no evidence of an order for the wheelchair included in the plan of care. Corrected on site with receipt of order.”

    Rule L0550. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 128 words

    “Upon patient record review, 2 of 23 (Patient #11,13) 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 11: The medical record contained physician documentation 7/23/25 identifying plan for patient discharge and decision to recertify patient 8/20/25. The plan of care was not updated to remove problems, goals, and interventions related to discharge planning. Corrected on site with update to plan of care. Patient 13: The medical record contained an order to discontinue spiritual care visits 8/29/25. The plan of care was not updated to remove problems, goals, and interventions to be addressed by the chaplain. Corrected on site with update to plan of care.”

    Rule L0553. Standard-level.

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

    “Upon patient record review 1 of 23 (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 Patient 2: The medical record contained an order for aide visits twice weekly. There was no evidence of a second visit completed the week of 8/31/25.”

    Rule L0626. Standard-level.

  • Level of activity (42 CFR 418.78(e))

    “Upon observation, there was no evidence the annual report documents the use of volunteers providing day to day administrative and/or direct patient care services in an amount that, at a minimum, equals 5 percent of the total patient care hours of all paid hospice employees and contract personnel. No evidence that the agency utilized volunteers for at least 5% of the total patient care hours in 2024. The total usage of volunteers for 2024 was 3.88%”

    Rule L0647. Standard-level.

  • Authentication (42 CFR 418.104(b))

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 23 (Patient #8) 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 8: The signed Patient Rights form acknowledging was not dated.”

    Rule L0679. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 363 words

    “Upon patient record review, 5 of 23 (Patient #5,6,15,16,17) did not have evidence that a written hospice plan of care is established and maintained in consultation with SNF/NF or ICF/IID representatives. All hospice care provided is in accordance with this hospice plan of care. Patient 5: Upon medication reconciliation during home visit, the facility and hospice medication orders did not match. The hospice did not have orders to discontinue lorazepam and morphine PRNs, and did not have an updated order for milk of magnesia PRN instead of scheduled daily. Corrected on site with order clarification. Patient 6: Upon medication reconciliation during home visit, the facility and hospice medication orders did not match. The facility had an order for lorazepam PRN that hospice did not have, and hospice had an order for lorazepam scheduled at bedtime that the facility did not have. Also the facility had an order for scheduled morphine twice daily that hospice did not have, and facility order for Mucinex was 15ml whereas hospice dose on order was 20ml. Corrected on site with order clarification. Patient 15: The medication profile contained duplicative orders for Preparation H with differing concentrates. Corrected on site with order clarification. Patient 16: Upon medication reconciliation during home visit, the facility and hospice medication orders did not match. The facility orders did not have lorazepam that was on hospice profile, facility had hyoscyamine every 24 hours PRN instead of hospice instructions every 2 hours PRN, facility had levetiracetam 250 mg twice daily instead of hospice instructions for once daily. Facility had oxycodone every 4 hours PRN instead of hospice instructions every 6 hours PRN, facility had oxygen 2LPM instead of hospice instructions for 2-4LPM, and hospice profile contained mucinex that was not on the facility profile. Corrected on site with order clarification. Patient 17: Upon medication reconciliation during home visit, the facility and hospice medication orders did not match. The facility orders contained acetaminophen suppository every 24 hours PRN instead of hospice instructions every 6 hours PRN, facility had buspirone 1 tab instead of hospice 1.5 tabs, and facility had clonidine patch changes on Tuesdays instead of hospice instructions for Mondays. Corrected on site with order clarification.”

    Rule L0773. Standard-level.

All 4 inspections in the last three years
Inspections on record
DateVisitWhat the record says
Nov 12, 2025Follow-up inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care2 deficiencies cited
Oct 8, 2025Complaint inspection by the stateNo deficiencies cited
Sep 19, 2025Complaint inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care10 deficiencies cited
Sep 18, 2025Reaccreditation inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care13 deficiencies cited

Is it certified?

  • Medicare-certified hospice since Nov 23, 2004.
  • Ownership: for-profit.
  • 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.
  • 10 deficiencies cited in the last three years came from inspections that included a complaint investigation.
Source:

CMS, QCOR hospice inspection reports. Released Oct 23, 2026. Updated quarterly.

Who does the caring?

  • From Medicare claims (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024): 12.4 nurse care minutes per routine home care day, 9.3% of skilled nursing minutes at weekends and a visit near death for 93.5% of patients who died.
  • Where its patients were cared for (Jan 1, 2024 to Dec 31, 2024): 46% at home, 27% in assisted living, 25% in a nursing facility, 2% in a skilled nursing facility.
Source:

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

Staffing measures
MeasureThis provider
Nurse care minutes per routine home care day12.4 min
Skilled nursing minutes at weekends9.3%
Visits near death93.5% of patients who died

Who owns it?

  • Odyssey Healthcare LP, LLC owns 99% directly since Jul 1, 2001.
  • 8 owners or officers are people: Robert Parker Guinsler (managing employee (under contract), 0%); Ronald C Lazas (corporate officer, 0%); David Robinson Arnold (corporate officer, 0%); David Robinson Arnold (runs it (operational or managerial control), 0%); Thomas Joseph Dolan (corporate officer, 0%); David Allen Causby (corporate officer, 0%); Janet L Combs (corporate officer, 0%); Earlene F Romine (managing employee (on the payroll)).
  • No private-equity firm among the owners CMS lists.
  • No real-estate investment trust among the owners CMS lists.
Source:

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

Organisations CMS lists
OrganisationRoleShareSince
Ch Services Midco Holdings Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies100%Feb 5, 2015
Curo Health Services Holdings, Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies100%Jun 6, 2014
Odyssey Healthcare Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies100%Jul 1, 2001
Charlotte Midco, LLCOwns 5% or more through other companies100%Aug 11, 2022
Falcon Hospice, LPOwns 5% or more through other companies100%Aug 11, 2022
Charlotte Buyer, Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies100%Jul 11, 2018
Curo Health Services LLCOwns 5% or more through other companies100%Jul 11, 2018
Odyssey Healthcare Holding CompanyOwns 5% or more through other companies100%Jul 1, 2001
Kah Hospice Company, Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies100%Mar 1, 2022
Ch Services Group Holdings Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies100%Feb 5, 2015
Ch Services Holdings Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies100%Jun 6, 2014
Odyssey Healthcare LP, LLCOwns 5% or more directly99%Jul 1, 2001
Odyssey Healthcare LP, LLCLimited partner99%Jul 1, 2001
Cd&r Falcon Holdings, LPOwns 5% or more through other companies60%Aug 11, 2022
Kentucky Homecare Parent Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies40%Aug 11, 2022
Kentucky Homecare Holdings, Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies40%Aug 11, 2022
Humana Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies40%Aug 11, 2022
Centerwell Health Services Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies40%Dec 22, 2022
Odyssey Healthcare Gp, LLCGeneral partner1%Jul 1, 2001

What do families say?

  • Family caregivers rate it 3 of 5 in CMS’s survey (Oct 1, 2023 to Sep 30, 2025): 79% rated it 9 or 10 out of 10, and 83% would definitely recommend it.
  • CMS’s Hospice Care Index: 9 of 10 (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024).
  • 98.84% of patients were assessed on all seven of CMS’s measures at the start of care (Oct 1, 2024 to Sep 30, 2025); 64.8% 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 53 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 26 hospices CMS’s data show serving patients in ZIP code 43230, where this hospice’s office is, the middle number of deficiencies cited in the last three years was 5; this one had 25.
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.