Traditions Health
A hospice in Waxahachie, Texas 75165
371 Solon Rd Ste 100b, Waxahachie, Texas 75165. (972) 878-2273.
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.
- 10 deficiencies cited in the last three years
- Not rated family caregiver rating
- 10of 10 CMS’s Hospice Care Index
Each figure’s source sits beside it, in its section below.
What these words mean2
- Inspection (survey)
- A visit by state inspectors, often unannounced, who check a place against the rules it must meet. For nursing homes and other places Medicare pays, CMS calls these visits surveys: a standard survey of a nursing home comes at least every 15 months, and a complaint survey whenever a complaint calls for one. Source: CMS; 42 CFR 488.308.
- Deficiency, citation, violation
- What inspectors write up when a place didn’t meet a rule: the rule, what they saw, and when. CMS calls it a deficiency; states may say citation or violation. It is the inspectors’ finding, not a court’s, and the place is usually asked for a plan to correct it. Source: CMS, statement of deficiencies (Form CMS-2567); each state’s licensing agency.
What did inspectors find?
10 deficiencies cited in the last three years
The middle of the 59 hospices serving ZIP code 75165 had 4.
The last inspection on record was on Dec 10, 2025: a reaccreditation inspection by The Joint Commission.
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
10 deficiencies in 1 month of the last 36. Last cited Dec 2025. Most serious: Standard-level. The last 3 years, to Nov 5, 2026.
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | Dec | |||||||||||
| 2024 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2025 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec |
| 2026 | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov |
Hover or focus a month to read it.
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.
CMS, QCOR hospice inspection reports. Released Oct 23, 2026. Updated quarterly.
Dec 10, 2025: reaccreditation inspection by The Joint Commission10 deficiencies
-
Timeframe for completion of assessment (42 CFR 418.54(b))
The inspectors’ words, 95 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 2 of 14 patient records reviewed, During RRBR# 1 and RRBR# 2’s patient record review it was noted the organization had not ensured the initial bereavement assessment was completed no later than five calendar days after the election of benefit (EOB). For example: review of RRBR# 1’s patient record revealed the initial bereavement assessment was completed approximately two months after the EOB. Review of RRBR# 2’s patient record revealed the initial bereavement assessment was completed approximately 40 days after the EOB. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the Administrator.”
-
Content of comprehensive assessment (42 CFR 418.54(c)(5))
The inspectors’ words, 229 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 1 of 14 patient records reviewed, During RRNHV# 1’s patient record review it was noted the organization had not ensured staff assessed and reassessed the patient per psychosocial comprehensive assessment procedure. For example: review of RRNHV# 1’s patient record revealed RRNHV# 1 was alert, oriented and had a history of depression with suicidal ideations and was hospitalized approximately eight months prior to hospice for depression and suicidal ideations. Further review of RRNHV# 1’s patient record revealed documentation that RRNHV# 1 had been removed from his home by Adult Protective Services due to financial exploitation by family members and placed in a skilled nursing facility and had suffered multiple losses. Review of RRNHV# 1’s Psychosocial comprehensive assessment revealed under Depression/Suicide Risk Assessment completed documentation No and under Why was a Depression/Suicide Risk Assessment not completed documentation not applicable. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the Administrator. Observed in Record Review. In 7 of 14 patient records reviewed, During RRHV# 1, RRHV# 2, RRNHV# 2, RRNHV# 4, RRNHV# 5, RRNHV# 6, and RRNHV# 7’s patient records review it was noted the organization had not ensured it assessed the need for volunteer services. For example: review of RRHV# 1, RRHV# 2, and RRNHV# 2’s patient records revealed no evidence that the need for volunteer services was assessed. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the Administrator.”
-
Content of comprehensive assessment (42 CFR 418.54(c)(7))
The inspectors’ words, 133 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 4 out of 14 records reviewed, the organization failed to assess its patients. For example, in record review of RRHV#2, RRHV#3, RRDC#1, and RRDC#2, there was no evidence that the organization assessed for the need for volunteer services. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the branch manager. Observed in Record Review. In 1 of 14 patient records reviewed, During RRNHV# 3’s patient record review it was noted the organization had not ensured an initial bereavement assessment was completed. For example: review of RRNHV# 3’s patient record revealed an election of benefit dated approximately 30 days prior to the surveyor review of the record. Further review of RRNHV# 3’s patient record revealed no documentation of an initial bereavement assessment. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the Administrator.”
-
Update of comprehensive assessment (42 CFR 418.54(d))
The inspectors’ words, 182 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 2 of 14 patient records reviewed, During RRNHV# 2 and RRNHV# 3’s patient records review it was noted the organization had not ensured the update to the comprehensive assessment included information about the patient’s progress toward desired outcomes and the patient’s response to volunteer care. For example: review of RRNHV# 2’s updates to the plan of care/Interdisciplinary (IDG) meeting notes revealed documentation by the Volunteer Coordinator that RRNHV# 2 had a volunteer visit 1-3 visits a month. Further review of the updates to the plan of care/IDG meeting notes revealed no documentation of the discussion at the IDG meetings that the volunteer visited or progress toward desired outcomes. Review of RRNHV# 3’s updates to the plan of care/IDG meeting notes revealed documentation by the Volunteer Coordinator that RRNHV# 3 had a volunteer visit two times a month. Further review of the updates to the plan of care/IDG meeting notes revealed no documentation of the discussion at the IDG meetings that the volunteer visited or progress toward desired outcomes. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the Administrator.”
-
Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c))
The inspectors’ words, 329 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 4 of 14 patient records reviewed, During RRNHV# 1, RRNHV# 2, RRNHV# 3, and RRNHV# 5’s patient records review it was noted the organization had not ensured the plan of care was based on the patient’s goals and time frames required to meet those goals. For example: review of RRNHV# 2’s patient record revealed Volunteer visit notes. However, review of the plan of care revealed no goals for the Volunteer services. Further review of RRNHV# 2’s plan of care revealed wound care orders for the left inner buttocks with no goals for the wound. Review of RRNHV# 3’s plan of care revealed a new antibiotic order for an infection to the left great toenail. Review of RRNHV# 3’s plan of care revealed no goal for the infected toenail. Further review of RRNHV# 3’s plan of care revealed a Chaplain non-measurable goal with no time frame that included Help [patient first name] recall assurance in Christ and see it evidenced in his body language and speech. Review of RRNHV# 1’s plan of care revealed a Chaplain goals that were not measurable and had no time frames that includedHelp [patient first name] know how to pursue spiritual encouragement; and Help [patient first name] experience lasting and true forgiveness toward his children. Review of RRNHV# 5’s Interdisciplinary (IDG)/update to plan of care meeting notes revealed the Volunteer Coordinator documentation that RRNHV# 5 had a volunteer visit 3-4 times a month. However review of the plan of care revealed no goals for Volunteer Services. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the Administrator. Observed in Record Review. In 3 out of 14 records reviewed, the organization failed to plan the patient’s care. For example, in record review for RRHV#2, RRHV#3, and RRDC#1, the organization had provided multiple volunteer visits during the course of care, however, there was no evidence of patient-specific volunteer goals on the plan of care. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the branch manager.”
-
Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(1))
The inspectors’ words, 161 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 3 of 14 patient records reviewed, During RRNHV# 2, RRNHV# 3, and RRNHV# 5’s patient records review it was noted the organization had not ensured the patient’s plan of care included interventions to manage pain and symptoms. For example: review of RRNHV# 2’s patient record revealed Volunteer visit notes. However, review of RRNHV# 2’s plan of care revealed no Volunteer services interventions. Review of RRNHV# 3’s Interdisciplinary (IDG)/update to plan of care meeting notes revealed the Volunteer Coordinator’s documentation that RRNHV# 3 had volunteer visits two times a month. However, review of RRNHV# 3’s IDG/update to plan of care revealed no interventions for the Volunteer. Review of RRNHV# 5’s IDG/update to plan of care meeting notes revealed the Volunteer Coordinator’s documentation that RRNHV# 5 had volunteer visits 3-4 times a month. However, review of RRNHV# 5’s IDG/update to plan of care revealed no interventions for the Volunteer. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the Administrator.”
-
Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(2))
The inspectors’ words, 263 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 3 of 14 patient records reviewed, During RRNHV# 2, RRNHV# 3, and RRNHV# 5’s patient records review it was noted the organization had not ensured the plan of care included a statement of the scope and frequency of services necessary to meet the patient’s and family’s needs. For example: review of RRNHV# 2’s Interdisciplinary (IDG) meeting notes revealed documentation by the Volunteer Coordinator that a volunteer was to visit RRNHV# 2 one to two times a month. However, review of RRNHV# 2’s Plan of Care and Updates to Plan of care revealed no documentation of Volunteer or Volunteer frequency. Review of RRNHV# 3’s IDG meeting notes revealed documentation by the Volunteer Coordinator that a volunteer was to visit RRNHV# 3 two times a month. However, review of RRNHV# 3’s plan of care revealed no documentation of Volunteer or Volunteer frequency. Review of RRNHV# 5’s IDG meeting notes revealed documentation by the Volunteer Coordinator that a volunteer was to visit RRNHV# 5 3-4 times a month. However review of RRNHV# 5’s plan of care revealed no documentation of Volunteer or Volunteer frequency. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the Administrator. Observed in Record Review. In 3 out of 14 records reviewed, the organization failed to plan the patient’s care. For example, in record review for RRHV#2, RRHV#3, and RRDC#1, the organization had provided multiple volunteer visits during the course of care, however, there was no evidence of a volunteer scope or frequency listed on the plan of care. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the branch manager.”
-
Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(4))
The inspectors’ words, 155 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 2 of 14 patient records reviewed, During RRHV# 1 and RRNHV# 3’s patient records review it was noted the organization had not ensured the plan of care included interventions to manage symptoms. For example: review of RRNHV# 3’s patient record revealed RRNHV# 3 had bilateral lower extremity +4 pitting edema and had tubular elastic bandages from toe to below the knee that was to be removed at night. However, review of RRNHV# 3’s plan of care revealed no documentation of tubular elastic bandages. Review of RRHV# 1’s hospice aide written patient care instructions revealed RRHV# 1 the task of applying Barrier Cream to the perianal area after each brief change. Review of RRHV# 1’s patient record revealed documentation that Thick Barrier cream was applied to RRHV# ‘s perianal area. However, review of RRHV# 1’s plan of care revealed no Barrier Cream. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the Administrator.”
-
Hospice aide assignments and duties (42 CFR 418.76(g)(1))
The inspectors’ words, 187 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 2 of 14 patient records reviewed, During RRNHV# 1 and RRNHV# 3’s patient records review it was noted the organization had not ensured the registered nurse prepared compete written patient care instructions for the hospice aide. For example: review of RRNHV# 1’s patient record reveled RRNHV# 1 had oxygen 1-4 Lpm via nasal cannula as needed. However, review of RRNHV# 1’s hospice aide written patient care instructions revealed no documentation of oxygen or oxygen precautions. Review of RRNHV# 3’s patient record revealed RRNHV# 3 had bilateral lower extremity +4 pitting edema and had tubular elastic bandages from toes to just below the knees to be removed at night. Review of RRNHV# 3’s hospice aide patient written instructions revealed the task of a shower with no documentation of the tubular elastic bandages or what to do if they bandages were to get wet. Further review of RRNHV# 3’s patient record revealed RRNHV# 3 had oxygen as needed. However, review of the hospice aide patient written instructions revealed no documentation of oxygen or oxygen precautions. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the Administrator.”
-
Content (42 CFR 418.104(a)(3))
The inspectors’ words, 270 words
“Observed in Patient Home. In 2 of 3 home visits conducted, in two of two home visits with medication reconciliation; during RRHV# 1’s home observation it was noted the organization had not ensured the patient record contained information that reflected the patient’s care, treatment, or services. For example: during RRHV# 1’s home observation the registered nurse (RN) was observed completing a medication reconciliation that included reviewing RRHV# 1’s prescription bottle of Famotidine 40 mg tablet daily with prescription dates approximately four months prior to the surveyor home observation. However, review of RRHV# 1’s medication profile revealed Famotidine 20mg tablet 1 tablet daily. This was observed, reviewed, discussed, and validated with the Administrator. Observed in Patient Home. In 1 out of 2 home visits conducted with a medication reconciliation, the organization failed to ensure that the patient record contains information that reflects the patient’s care treatment, or services. For example, in RRHV#3, during the home visit, it was observed that the patient’s medication profile included several medications that were not present or currently being taken including; Azelastine 137 mcg nasal spray, Diclofenac 1% gel, Restasis 0.05% drops, Memantine 10 mg, Donepezil 10 mg, and Alendronate 35 mg. Upon further review, it was observed that the patient had several medications not listed on the profile that they had been taking for several months including Trazadone 75 mg, and Buspirone 7.5 mg. Furthermore, the patient’s medication profile indicated a prescription for Buspirone 5 mg to be taken twice daily, however, the medication label in the home had instructions to take only once daily. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the branch manager.”
The one inspection in the last three years
| Date | Visit | What the record says |
|---|---|---|
| Dec 10, 2025 | Reaccreditation inspection by The Joint Commission | 10 deficiencies cited |
Is it certified?
- Medicare-certified hospice since Jun 19, 2003.
- Ownership: for-profit.
- No 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. deficiency or CMS’s most serious finding: the place’s failure to meet a rule caused, or was likely to cause, serious injury, harm, impairment or death to someone in its care. Source: CMS; 42 CFR 489.3. on record in the last three years.
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.
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): 16.5 nurse care minutes per routine home care day, 7% of skilled nursing minutes at weekends and a visit near death for 95.2% of patients who died.
- Where its patients were cared for (Jan 1, 2024 to Dec 31, 2024): 33% at home, 5% in assisted living, 44% in a nursing facility, 13% in a skilled nursing facility, 5% elsewhere.
CMS, Hospice Provider Data. Released Aug 26, 2026. Updated quarterly.
| Measure | This provider |
|---|---|
| Nurse care minutes per routine home care day | 16.5 min |
| Skilled nursing minutes at weekends | 7% |
| Visits near death | 95.2% of patients who died |
Who owns it?
- At Home Holdings, Inc. owns 100% directly since Dec 3, 2025.
- 4 owners or officers are people: Chris Walker (corporate director); Chris Walker (managing employee (on the payroll)); Karen Anne Zitek (managing employee (on the payroll), 0%); James L Thomison (managing employee (under contract)).
- A private-equity firm is among the owners CMS lists.
- No real-estate investment trust among the owners CMS lists.
CMS, Hospice All Owners and Hospice Enrollments. Released Sep 29, 2026. Updated quarterly.
| Organisation | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tvg Np Homecare Acquisition Holdings, Inc. | Owns 5% or more through other companies | 100% | Dec 3, 2025 |
| Tvg Np Homecare Acquisition Intermediate, Inc. | Owns 5% or more through other companies | 100% | Dec 3, 2025 |
| Tvg Np Homecare Acquisition, Inc. | Owns 5% or more through other companies | 100% | Dec 3, 2025 |
| Tvg Np Homecare Topco, LP | Owns 5% or more through other companies | 100% | Dec 3, 2025 |
| At Home Holdings, Inc. | Owns 5% or more directly | 100% | Dec 3, 2025 |
| Tvg Np Homecare Sponsorco, LP | Owns 5% or more through other companies | 80.4% | Dec 3, 2025 |
| Anthony Family Investments, Ltd | Owns 5% or more through other companies | 26.8% | Dec 3, 2025 |
| Vistria Fund III LP | Owns 5% or more through other companies | 18% | Dec 3, 2025 |
| Nautic Partners Ix, LP | Owns 5% or more through other companies | 16.9% | Dec 3, 2025 |
| Kihm Holdings, Inc. | Owns 5% or more through other companies | 11.1% | Dec 3, 2025 |
| Nautic Partners Ix-A LP | Owns 5% or more through other companies | 9.9% | Dec 3, 2025 |
| Vistria Fund III (Ft) LP | Owns 5% or more through other companies | 8.8% | Dec 3, 2025 |
What do families say?
- CMS gives no family caregiver survey rating: “The number of cases is too small to report Star Ratings.”
- In CMS’s survey of family caregivers (Oct 1, 2023 to Sep 30, 2025): 92% rated it 9 or 10 out of 10, and 91% would definitely recommend it.
- CMS’s Hospice Care Index: 10 of 10 (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024).
- 100% of patients were assessed on all seven of CMS’s measures at the start of care (Oct 1, 2024 to Sep 30, 2025); 60.7% had visits from a nurse or social worker on at least 2 of their last 3 days (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024).
CMS, CAHPS Hospice Survey and Hospice Provider Data. Released Aug 26, 2026. Updated quarterly.
| Measure | Rating |
|---|---|
| Family caregiver survey ratingCMS star rating from its survey of patients’ family caregivers, 1 to 5 | Not rated |
| Hospice Care IndexCMS’s Hospice Care Index, 0 to 10 (higher is better): a point for each of ten measures from Medicare claims on which the hospice meets CMS’s threshold | 10 of 10 |
How does it compare nearby?
- Of the 59 hospices CMS’s data show serving patients in ZIP code 75165, where this hospice’s office is, the middle number of deficiencies cited in the last three years was 4; this one had 10.
CMS, Hospice ZIP Data. Released Aug 26, 2026. Updated quarterly.
CMS, QCOR hospice inspection reports. Released Oct 23, 2026. Updated quarterly.
| Place | Deficiencies, 3 years |
|---|---|
| Traditions Health This hospice | 10 |
| Bristol Hospice - North Central Texas | 11 |
| Community Healthcare of Texas | 2 |
| Vitas Healthcare of Texas LP | 15 |
| VNA | 1 |
| Custom Care Hospice | 4 |
| Cardinal Hospice | 2 |
| Amedisys Hospice | 8 |
| Elara Caring | Not given |
| Faith Presbyterian Hospice | 37 |
| Hospice Plus | 18 |
| Good Shepherd Hospice of Dallas LLC | 0 |
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
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Hospice General Information (yc9t-dgbk).
Released Aug 26, 2026 and checked Nov 5, 2026. Updated quarterly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Hospice Provider Data (252m-zfp9).
Released Aug 26, 2026 and checked Nov 5, 2026. Updated quarterly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, CAHPS Hospice Survey (gxki-hrr8).
Released Aug 26, 2026 and checked Nov 5, 2026. Updated quarterly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, QCOR hospice inspection reports (Hospice Survey Reports - Oct 2021 through Sep 2026.xlsx).
Released Oct 23, 2026 and checked Oct 27, 2026. Updated quarterly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Hospice All Owners (e983965e-1603-4cb8-82b5-c40090e380d1).
Released Sep 29, 2026 and checked Nov 5, 2026. Updated quarterly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Hospice Enrollments (25704213-e833-4b8b-9dbc-58dd17149209).
Released Sep 29, 2026 and checked Nov 5, 2026. Updated quarterly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
-
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Hospice ZIP Data (95rg-2usp).
Released Aug 26, 2026 and checked Nov 5, 2026. Updated quarterly. Public domain (U.S. Government work).
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.
This copy of the record was made on Nov 5, 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.