Hearth Record

Integris Hospice House

A hospice in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73134

13920 Quailbrook Drive, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73134. (405) 848-8884.

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 7 deficiencies in 1 month of the last 36. Last cited May 2025. Most serious: Standard-level. Every month

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

What these words mean3
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.

What did inspectors find?

7 deficiencies cited in the last three years

The middle of the 29 hospices serving ZIP code 73134 had 6.

The last inspection on record was on May 16, 2025: a complaint and recertification inspection by the state.

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

7 deficiencies in 1 month of the last 36. Last cited May 2025. Most serious: Standard-level. The last 3 years, to Oct 27, 2026.

7 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.

May 16, 2025: complaint and recertification inspection by the state7 deficiencies
  • Rights of the patient (42 CFR 418.52(c)(1))

    The inspectors’ words, 396 words

    “Based on record review and interview, the hospice failed to ensure it provided medications for the management of the pain for one (Patient #15) of 19 patients. Findings: Patient #15A review of the clinical record showed an election of the hospice benefit/SOC on 11/10/23. A plan of care dated 11/11/23 to 02/07/24 documented a primary diagnosis of lung cancer with metastasis to the liver. An RN note dated 11/10/25 at 5:50 p.m., documented the patient “hurt everywhere” and was experiencing ascites (swelling of the abdomen) and nausea. The medical provider was called and medications were ordered from the pharmacy for home delivery of morphine sulfate extended release for pain, morphine sulfate immediate release for pain, and Phenergan and Zofran for nausea to be delivered by the pharmacy on the 6 p.m. delivery run. An RN note dated 11/11/23 at 8:28 p.m., documented the patient had no medication in the home. A telephone call to the pharmacy to follow up on home delivery of medications ordered on 11/10/25 was conducted (26 + hours since pharmacy order placed). Medications to be delivered to the home by the pharmacy. An RN note dated 11/12/23 at 5:15 p.m., documented the daughter gave the patient morphine sulfate 30 minutes before the home visit. The patient continues to complain of pain “everywhere”. At 8:45 p.m. the patient was transferred to the hospice house for in-patient hospice care via ambulance transport. At 8:58 p.m., the patient arrived at the hospice house for in-patient hospice care. On 11/13/24 at 12:14 a.m., documentation showed the patient expired at the in-patient hospice facility (3 hours and 16 minutes from time of arrival). On 05/16/25 at 2:50 p.m., Staff B stated:1. The SN staff making the home visits should have followed up with the patient’s family to ensure the medications had been delivered to the home. 2. The pharmacy should deliver the new order medications by the same day and refills by the next business day. 3. If the physician was delayed in sending in the prescriptions for the morphine sulfate extended release and the morphine sulfate immediate release for pain the delivery could have been delayed until the next business day after the pharmacy received the prescriptions.4. The hospice was unable to find out what date and time the medications were delivered to the patient’s home between 11/10/23 at 5:50 p.m. and 11/12/23 at 5:15 p.m.”

    Rule L0512. Standard-level. From a complaint.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 165 words

    “Based on record review and interview, the hospice failed to ensure an initial spiritual assessment was conducted within the five-day timeframe required to complete the initial comprehensive assessment for two (Patients #2 and #9) of 19 patients. Findings: Patient #2A review of the clinical record showed an election of the hospice benefit/SOC on 04/01/25. Documentation showed a spiritual assessment was conducted on 04/07/25 (6 days later) by a chaplain. Documentation showed no declined chaplain visits, no physician notifications, and no changes in orders. On 05/16/25 at 9:15 a.m., Staff A stated the chaplain had not conducted the initial spiritual assessment within the five-day timeframe. Patient #9A review of the clinical record showed an election of the hospice benefit on 01/31/25. Documentation showed no spiritual assessment was conducted by a chaplain. Documentation showed no declined chaplain visits, no physician notifications, and no changes in orders. On 05/16/25 at 10:55 a.m., Staff A stated the chaplain had not conducted the initial spiritual assessment within the five-day timeframe.”

    Rule L0523. Standard-level. From a complaint.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 241 words

    “Based on record review and interview, the agency failed to ensure medication regimen changes were updated on the medication profile for two (Patients #2 and #12) of 19 patients. Findings: Patient #2A review of the plan of care dated 04/01/25 to 05/30/25 showed a diagnosis of Colan cancer. A case management note dated 04/16/25 stated change oral pain medication to hydromorphone 8 milligrams three times a day. A review of the clinical record showed no update to the medication profile for the medication hydromorphone and showed no review for potential/adverse effects, drug reactions, side effects, interactions and duplicate drug therapy. On 05/16/25 at 9:15 a.m., Staff A stated the medication should have been added to the medication profile and reviewed for potential/adverse effects, drug reactions, side effects, interactions and duplicate drug therapy. Patient #12A review of the plan of care dated 04/01/25 to 05/30/25 showed a diagnosis of stage 4 kidney disease and showed no medication listed in the medication profile. An IDG note dated 04/08/25 showed no medication listed in the medication profile. An IDG note dated 04/09/25 showed no medication listed in the medication profile. An IDG note dated 04/18/25 showed ordered medications on the medication profile of the POC (17 days after initiation of the POC on 04/01/25). On 05/16/25 at 11:50 a.m., Staff A stated the medication should have been added to the medication profile of the POC and reviewed for drug reactions, side effects and interactions.”

    Rule L0530. Standard-level. From a complaint.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 1,029 words

    “Based on record review and interview, the hospice failed to ensure:Initial bereavement/psychosocial assessment was conducted within the five-day timeframe required to complete the initial comprehensive assessment for four (Patients #2, 6, 8 and #14) of 23 patients.A bereavement POC was established and implemented for 13 (Patients #1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and #14) of 23 patients. Findings: Patient #1A review of the clinical record showed an initial bereavement assessment dated 05/02/25 with an IDG update scheduled for 05/15/25. Documentation showed no bereavement POC, no patient or caregiver refusal of a bereavement POC and no change in orders. On 05/16/25 at 9:05 a.m., Staff A stated patient #1 had no bereavement POC. Patient #2A review of the clinical record showed an election of the hospice benefit on 04/01/25. Documentation showed no bereavement/psychosocial assessment was conducted, no follow up care and services were offered or provided by an MSW and no bereavement POC, no declined MSW visits, no patient or caregiver refusal of a bereavement POC, no physician notifications, and no changes in orders. On 05/16/25 at 9:15 a.m., Staff A stated:1. The MSW had not conducted the initial bereavement/psychosocial assessment within the five-day timeframe required to complete the initial comprehensive assessment.2. Patient #2 had no bereavement POC.3. The hospice does not implement bereavement care plans until after a patient’s death. Patient #3A review of the clinical record showed an initial bereavement assessment dated 04/21/25 with an IDG update scheduled for 05/02/25. Documentation showed no bereavement POC, no patient or caregiver refusal of a bereavement POC and no change in orders. On 05/16/25 at 9:25 a.m., Staff A stated patient #3 had no bereavement POC. Patient #5A review of the clinical record showed an initial bereavement assessment dated 04/25/25 with an IDG update on 05/09/25. Documentation showed no bereavement POC, no patient or caregiver refusal of a bereavement POC and no change in orders. On 05/16/25 at 9:55 a.m., Staff A stated patient #5 had no bereavement POC. Patient #6A review of the clinical record showed an election of the hospice benefit on 02/25/25. Documentation showed no bereavement/psychosocial assessment was conducted, no follow up care and services were offered or provided by an MSW, no bereavement POC, no declined MSW visits, no patient or caregiver refusal of a bereavement POC, no physician notifications, and no changes in orders. On 05/16/25 at 9:15 a.m., Staff B stated:1. The MSW did not conducted the initial bereavement/psychosocial assessment within the five-day timeframe required to complete the initial comprehensive assessment.2. Patient #6 had no bereavement POC.3. The hospice does not implement bereavement care plans until after a patient’s death. Patient #7A review of the clinical record showed an initial bereavement assessment dated 12/12/24 with an IDG meetings on 03/10/25, 03/14/25, 03/28/25, 04/11/25, 04/25/25 and on 05/09/25. Documentation showed no bereavement POC, no patient or caregiver refusal of a bereavement POC and showed no change in orders. On 05/16/25 at 10:20 a.m., Staff A stated patient #7 had no bereavement POC. Patient #8A review of the clinical record showed an election of the hospice benefit on 05/02/25. Documentation showed no bereavement/psychosocial assessment was conducted, showed no follow up care and services were offered or provided by an MSW, showed no bereavement POC, no declined MSW visits, no patient or caregiver refusal of a bereavement POC, no physician notifications, and no changes in orders. On 05/16/25 at 10:45 a.m., Staff A stated:1. The MSW did not conducted the initial bereavement/psychosocial assessment within the five-day timeframe required to complete the initial comprehensive assessment.2. Patient #8 had no bereavement POC.3. The hospice does not implement bereavement care plans until after a patient’s death. Patient #9A review of the clinical record showed an initial bereavement assessment dated 02/04/25 with an IDG meeting on 05/09/25. Documentation showed no bereavement POC, no patient or caregiver refusal of a bereavement POC and showed no change in orders. On 05/16/25 at 10:55 a.m., Staff A stated patient #9 had no bereavement POC. Patient #10A review of the clinical record showed an initial bereavement assessment dated 03/12/25 with an IDG meeting on 03/14/25, 03/24/25, 04/18/25 and on 05/02/25. Documentation showed no bereavement POC, no patient or caregiver refusal of a bereavement POC and showed no change in orders. On 05/16/25 at 11:05 a.m., Staff A stated patient #10 had no bereavement POC. Patient #11A review of the clinical record showed an initial bereavement assessment dated 12/13/25 with an IDG meeting on 04/08/25, 04/25/25 and on 05/09/25. Documentation showed no bereavement POC, no patient or caregiver refusal of a bereavement POC and showed no change in orders. On 05/16/25 at 11:30 a.m., Staff A stated patient #11 had no bereavement POC. Patient #12A review of the clinical record showed an election of the hospice benefit on 04/08/25. Documentation showed an initial bereavement and psychosocial assessment was conducted on 04/14/25 (6 days) with an IDG meeting on 04/08/25, 04/18/25 and on 05/02/25. Documentation showed no declined MSW visits, no physician notifications, and no changes in orders. On 05/16/25 at 11:50 a.m., Staff A stated:1. The MSW had not conducted the initial bereavement and psychosocial assessment within the five-day timeframe required to complete the initial comprehensive assessment. 2. Patient #12 had no bereavement POC. Patient #13A review of the clinical record showed an initial bereavement assessment dated 03/06/25 with an IDG meeting on 03/21/25, 04/02/25, 04/08/25, 04/18/25 and on 05/02/25. Documentation showed no bereavement POC, no patient or caregiver refusal of a bereavement POC and showed no change in orders. Patient #14A review of the clinical record showed an election of the hospice benefit on 01/10/25. Documentation showed no bereavement and psychosocial assessment was conducted, no follow up care and services were offered or provided by an MSW, no bereavement POC, no declined MSW visits, no patient or caregiver refusal of a bereavement POC, no physician notifications, and no changes in orders. On 05/16/25 at 12:25 p.m., Staff A stated:1. The MSW had not conducted the initial bereavement and psychosocial assessment within the five-day timeframe required to complete the initial comprehensive assessment.2. Patient #14 had no bereavement POC.3. The hospice does not implement bereavement care plans until after a patient’s death.”

    Rule L0531. Standard-level. From a complaint.

  • Update of comprehensive assessment (42 CFR 418.54(d))

    The inspectors’ words, 676 words

    “Based on record review and interview, the agency failed to ensure care was coordinated between the IDG and physician for six (Patients #3, 7, 13, 14, 15 and #19) of 19 patients. Findings: Patient #3A review of a plan of care dated 04/16/25 to 07/14/25 showed a primary diagnosis of late effects cerebrovascular accident. Documentation showed orders for hospice aide visits one time for four days, two times a week for 12 weeks, then one time day for two days. Aide missed visit notifications dated 04/17/25, 04/24/25, 04/29/25, 05/06/25 and on 05/08/25 were auto faxed to the physician with no follow-up coordination of care attempts to advise of the patient’s continued missed aide visits as ordered on the POC, and documentation showed no attempts to reschedule or make up the missed aide visits during the weeks they were ordered. On 05/16/25 at 9:25 a.m., Staff A stated the auto faxed missed hospice aide visit notifications should have been followed up with the physician and the IDG members to update the POC.Patient #7A review of a plan of care dated 03/10/25 to 06/07/25 documented a primary diagnosis of prostate cancer with metastasis to the liver. A SN visit note dated 03/03/25 showed documentation that the patient was experiencing nausea and vomiting of bile and was symptomatic of febrile illness with a temperature of 102.1 degrees Fahrenheit and showed no subsequent follow up by the IDG and the physician until 03/18/25 (15 days later). On 05/16/25 at 10:20 a.m., Staff A stated the SN should have addressed the changes in the patient’s condition with the physician and the IDG when the SN noted the changes in condition. Patient #13A review of a plan of care dated 03/19/25 to 05/17/25 documented a primary diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease. An RN case management note dated 03/04/25 showed documentation that the patient had morphine sulfate elixir (a pain medication) in the home. The POC showed no morphine sulfate elixir on the medication profile. Follow up by the IDG and the physician on 03/21/25, 04/02/25, 04/08/25, 04/18/25 and on 05/02/25 (over the course of 42 days) showed no order for morphine sulfate elixir for the treatment of pain. On 05/16/25 at 12:10 p.m., Staff A stated the IDG should have addressed the pain medication the patient was using in the home. Patient #14A review of a plan of care dated 04/10/25 to 07/08/25 showed a primary diagnosis of cardiovascular disease. A SN visit note dated 04/11/25 showed the patient was experiencing poor appetite, only ate a few bites at a time and lost 90 pounds in the last 9 months. Documentation showed no follow up by the IDG and the physician. On 05/16/25 at 12:25 p.m., Staff A stated the SN should have addressed the changes in the patient’s condition with the physician and the IDG. Patient #15A review of a plan of care dated 11/11/23 to 02/07/24 showed a primary diagnosis of lung cancer with metastasis to the liver. An RN note dated 11/10/25 at 5:50 p.m., showed medications were ordered from the pharmacy for home delivery of morphine sulfate extended release and morphine sulfate immediate release for pain, and Phenergan and Zofran for nausea. The POC showed no morphine sulfate extended release for pain, morphine sulfate immediate release for pain, and Phenergan and Zofran for nausea. On 05/16/25 at 1:24 p.m., Staff A stated the SN staff making the home visits and the IDG team should have addressed the medications the patient was using in the home when developing the comprehensive POC. Patient #19A review of a plan of care dated 01/17/25 to 04/15/25 showed a primary diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Documentation showed IDG meetings to review and update the patient’s POC occurred on 01/03/25 and again on 02/09/25 (37 days) and showed no coordination of care communications with the physician and no IDG related to hospice provider services during IDG meetings on 01/18/25 and on 01/26/25. On 05/16/25 at 2:20 p.m., Staff A stated IDG meetings in hospice care to review and update the POC should occur every 15 days.”

    Rule L0533. Standard-level. From a complaint.

  • Plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(b))

    The inspectors’ words, 971 words

    “Based on record review and interview, the hospice failed to ensure:1. Aide visits were provided in accordance with the plan of care for four (Patients #3, 5, 8 and 17) of 19 patients.2. SN performed pain assessments consistent with the physician order for three (Patients #4, 9 and #11) of 19 patients.3. SN visits were provided in accordance with the plan of care for one (Patients #13) of 19 patients. Findings: Patient #3A review of a POC dated 04/16/25 to 07/14/25 with IDG updates on 04/16/25 and 05/02/25 showed an aide visit frequency of one time a day for four days, two times a week for 12 weeks, then one every two days, times two days. During the week of 04/20/25 to 04/26/25 on 04/24/25 showed an aide missed visit (one aide visit was missed, two aide visits ordered). Documentation showed no communication between the IDG and no changes in the ordered aide visit frequencies. On 05/16/25 at 9:25 a.m., Staff A stated aide visits were not provided in accordance with the POC. Patient #4A review of a clinical record showed the patient was admitted to in-patient respite care at the facility on 04/24/25 and discharged home on 05/14/25. Documentation showed orders for Morphine Sulfate (a pain medication) 100mg per five milliliters, 20 milligrams for pain every two hours. On 04/24/25 the patient received Morphine Sulfate (a pain medication) (100mg per five milliliters), 20 milligrams IV for pain as ordered for signs/symptoms of pain at 8:18 p.m. and again at 10:33 p.m. Documentation showed no follow up pain assessment to assess effectiveness of pain medication at either time. On 04/25/25 the patient received Morphine Sulfate (a pain medication) (100mg per five milliliters), 20 milligrams for pain as ordered for signs/symptoms of pain at 5:30 p.m. Documentation showed no follow up pain assessment to assess effectiveness of the pain medication and no communication or changes in orders. On 05/16/25 at 9:45 a.m., Staff A stated a follow up pain assessment should be conducted within one hour after medication administration. Patient #5A review of a POC dated 04/24/25 to 07/22/25 with IDG updates on 04/24/25 and 05/09/25 showed documentation of an aide visit frequency of four visits every 10 days times 10 days, three times a week for 10 weeks, then four visits every 10 days times 10 days. During the week of 05/04/25 to 05/10/25 on 05/05/25, 05/07/25 and on 05/10/25 aide missed visits were documented (three aide visits were missed, three aide visits ordered) and showed no communication between the IDG, no attempts to reschedule or make up the visits and no changes in the ordered aide visit frequencies. On 05/16/25 at 9:55 a.m., Staff A stated aide visits were not provided in accordance with the POC. Patient #8A review of a POC dated 05/02/25 to 07/30/25 with IDG updates on 05/02/25 showed documentation of an aide visit frequency of four visits three times a week for 12 weeks. During the week of 05/04/25 to 05/10/25 on 05/06/25 and on 05/08/25 aide missed visits were documented (two aide visits were missed, three aide visits ordered) and showed no communication between the IDG, no attempts to reschedule or make up the visits and no changes in the ordered aide visit frequencies. On 05/16/25 at 10:45 a.m., Staff A stated aide visits were not provided in accordance with the POC. Patient #9A review of a POC dated 05/01/25 to 07/29/25 with IDG updates on 05/09/25 showed SN to assess the patient’s pain level every visit and notify the physician of reported pain level of greater than 6-7 out of 10. SN visits on 05/07/25 and 05/08/25 showed no assessment of the patient’s pain levels and no communication between the IDG and no change in orders. On 05/16/25 at 1:55 p.m., Staff A stated the SN should have assessed the patient’s pain during each of the visits. Patient #11A review of a POC dated 04/08/25 to 06/06/25 with IDG updates on 04/08/25, 04/25/25 and on 05/02/25 showed SN to assess the patient’s pain reported pain level and effectiveness of pain medication every visit and notify the physician of unrelieved pain level. SN visits on 04/22/25 and 05/01/25 showed no assessment of the patient’s pain levels and showed no communication between the IDG and showed no change in orders. On 05/16/25 at 11:30 a.m., Staff A stated the SN should have assessed the patient’s pain during each of the visits. Patient #13A review of a POC dated 03/19/25 to 05/17/25 with IDG updates on 03/21/25, 04/22/25, 04/08/25, 04/18/25 and 05/02/25 showed documentation of an SN visit frequency of one visit times three days, then two times a week for eight weeks. During the week of 03/23/25 to 03/29/25 a visit was conducted on 03/27/25 (one visit conducted, two visits ordered); and during the week of 03/30/25 to 04/05/25 a visit was missed on 04/01/25 (one visit missed, two visits ordered). Documentation showed no communications between the IDG, no attempts to reschedule or make up the visits and showed no changes in the SN visit frequencies ordered. On 05/16/25 at 12:10 p.m., Staff A stated SN visits were not provided in accordance with the POC. Patient #17A review of a POC dated 11/08/25 to 01/06/25 with IDG updates on 11/08/24, 11/22/24 showed documentation of an aide visit frequency of one time a day for two days, three times a week for eight weeks, then one time a day for two days. During the week of 11/10/24 to 11/16/24 no aide visits were documented (three aide visits were missed, three aide visits ordered). Documentation showed no communication between the IDG, no attempts to reschedule or make up the visits and showed no changes in the ordered aide visit frequencies. On 05/16/25 at 1:55 p.m., Staff A stated aide visits were not provided in accordance with the POC.”

    Rule L0543. Standard-level. From a complaint.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 789 words

    “Based on record review and interview, the hospice failed to ensure:1. The plan of care included interventions for urinary catheter management and a pain management goal for one (Patient #5) of 19 patients. 2. Plans of care included physician reporting pain level parameters for four (Patients #6, 10, 11, and #17) of 19 patients. 3. Plans of care included interventions and goals related to the hospice diagnosis for two (Patients #7 and #12) of 19 patients. Findings: Patient #5A review of a POC dated 04/24/25 to 07/22/25 with IDG updates during the weeks of 04/24/25 and on 05/09/25 showed order for SN to assess effectiveness of pain management every visit. The POC showed no goals related to pain management. SN visit notes dated 04/24/25, 04/25/25, 05/01/25, 05/07/25 and on 05/09/25 documented the patient had an indwelling foley catheter in place showed no orders for SN to perform urinary catheter management monthly, no communications between the IDG and no changes in the POC. On 05/16/25 at 9:55 a.m., Staff B stated:1. The patient had an indwelling foley catheter in place and the POC showed no orders for SN to perform urinary catheter management monthly.2. The POC had no goals related to pain management. Patient #6A review of the POC dated 04/26/25 to 06/24/25 showed orders for SN to assess and instruct severity of the patient’s pain level and effectiveness of pain medication every visit. POC documentation showed no pain reporting parameters for physician notification. SN visits conducted on 03/21/25 showed a reported pain level of 6 of 10 and on 04/22/25 a reported pain level of 3 of 10. Documentation showed no communications between the IDG and showed no changes in the POC. On 05/16/25 at 10:12 a.m., Staff A stated the POC had no pain reporting parameters to report to the physician. Patient #7A review of a POC dated 03/10/25 to 06/07/25 with IDG updates during the weeks of 03/10/25, 03/14/25, 03/28/24, 04/11/25, 04/25/25 and on 05/09/25 showed a hospice diagnosis of prostate cancer. The POC showed no interventions or goals related to hospice diagnosis of prostate cancer and no communications between the IDG and showed no changes in the POC. On 05/16/25 at 9:55 a.m., Staff A stated the POC had no interventions or goals related to hospice diagnosis. Patient #10A review of the POC dated 03/07/25 to 06/04/25 showed orders for SN to assess and instruct severity of the patient’s pain level and effectiveness of pain medication every visit. POC documentation showed no pain reporting parameters for physician notification. SN visits conducted on 03/25/25 showed a reported pain level of 7 of 10 and on 04/03/25 a reported pain level of 3 of 10 and showed no communications between the IDG and showed no changes in the POC. On 05/16/25 at 11:05 a.m., Staff A stated the POC had no pain reporting parameters to report to the physician. Patient #11A review of the POC dated 04/08/25 to 06/06/25 showed orders for SN to assess and instruct severity of the patient’s pain level and effectiveness of pain medication every visit. POC documentation showed no pain reporting parameters for physician notification. SN visits conducted on 04/22/25 showed a reported pain level of “has pain, yes” with no severity rating and on 05/01/25 a reported pain level of “has pain, yes” with no severity rating and showed no communications between the IDG and no changes in the POC. On 05/16/25 at 11:30 a.m., Staff A stated the POC had no pain reporting parameters to report to the physician. Patient #12A review of a POC dated 04/08/25 to 07/06/25 with IDG updates during the weeks of 04/8/25, 04/09/25, 04/18/24 and on 05/02/25 showed a hospice diagnosis of stage 4 chronic kidney disease. The POC showed no interventions or goals related to hospice diagnosis of stage 4 chronic kidney disease and showed no communications between the IDG and no changes in the POC. On 05/16/25 at 11:50 a.m., Staff A stated the POC had no interventions or goals related to hospice diagnosis. Patient #17A review of the POC dated 11/08/24 to 01/06/25 showed orders for SN to assess and instruct severity of the patient’s pain level and effectiveness of pain medication every visit. The POC showed no pain reporting parameters for physician notification. SN visits conducted on 11/07/24 showed a reported pain level of “has pain, yes” with no severity rating, 11/20/24 a reported pain level of “has pain, yes” with no severity rating and on 11/27/24 a reported pain level of “has pain, yes” with no severity rating and showed no communications between the IDG and no changes in the POC. On 05/16/25 at 1:55 p.m., Staff A stated the POC had no pain reporting parameters to report to the physician.”

    Rule L0545. Standard-level. From a complaint.

The one inspection in the last three years
Inspections on record
DateVisitWhat the record says
May 16, 2025Complaint and recertification inspection by the state7 deficiencies cited

Is it certified?

  • Medicare-certified hospice since Sep 24, 1996.
  • 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.
  • 7 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): 11.2 nurse care minutes per routine home care day, 10.4% of skilled nursing minutes at weekends and a visit near death for 98% of patients who died.
  • Where its patients were cared for (Jan 1, 2024 to Dec 31, 2024): 68% at home, 9% in assisted living, 7% in a nursing facility, 16% in an inpatient hospice.
Source:

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

Staffing measures
MeasureThis provider
Nurse care minutes per routine home care day11.2 min
Skilled nursing minutes at weekends10.4%
Visits near death98.0% of patients who died

Who owns it?

  • Integris Health Inc. owns 100% directly since Jul 14, 2009.
  • 14 owners or officers are people: Linda Merkey (corporate director, 0%); Ashley N Muckala (corporate director, 0%); Donna M Wallace (corporate officer, 0%); Donna M Wallace (managing employee (on the payroll), 0%); Lydia Welch (corporate director, 0%); Michael L Weed (corporate director, 0%); Casey Ahlden (corporate director, 0%); Brad Ferguson (corporate director, 0%); Melinda Warren (corporate director, 0%); Michelle Powers (corporate director); Alison Fink (corporate director); Avilla Williams (corporate director); Timothy Pehrson (corporate director, 0%); Timothy Pehrson (managing employee (on the payroll), 0%).
  • 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
Integris Health Inc.Owns 5% or more directly100%Jul 14, 2009

What do families say?

  • Family caregivers rate it 4 of 5 in CMS’s survey (Oct 1, 2023 to Sep 30, 2025): 86% rated it 9 or 10 out of 10, and 91% would definitely recommend it.
  • CMS’s Hospice Care Index: 9 of 10 (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024).
  • 57.12% of patients were assessed on all seven of CMS’s measures at the start of care (Oct 1, 2024 to Sep 30, 2025); 59.4% 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 54 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 29 hospices CMS’s data show serving patients in ZIP code 73134, where this hospice’s office is, the middle number of deficiencies cited in the last three years was 6; this one had 7.
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.