Angel Bright Hospice Inc.
A hospice in Corpus Christi, Texas 78415
3213 Holly Rd, Corpus Christi, Texas 78415. (361) 853-4300.
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.
- 16 deficiencies cited in the last three years
- 3of 5 family caregiver rating
- 10of 10 CMS’s Hospice Care Index
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?
16 deficiencies cited in the last three years
The middle of the 38 hospices serving ZIP code 78415 had 5.
The last inspection on record was on Feb 20, 2026: a complaint inspection by the state.
6 deficiencies at condition level, the more serious of CMS’s two levels
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
16 deficiencies in 2 months of the last 36. Last cited Dec 2024. Most serious: Condition-level. The last 3 years, to Oct 27, 2026.
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | Nov | 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 |
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 30, 2024: follow-up inspection by The Joint Commission3 deficiencies
-
Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c))
The inspectors’ words, 156 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 2 of 5 patient records reviewed, During RR# 1 and RR# 5’s patient records review it was noted the organization had not ensured the plan of care was based on the patient’s goals. For example: review of RR# 1’s updated plan of care, dated approximately 11 days prior to the surveyor review of the record, revealed RR# 1’s terminal diagnosis was Pulmonary Heart Disease and was on 5 LPM via nasal cannula. However, further review of RR# 1’s updated plan of care revealed no goals for the oxygen intervention. Review of RR# 5’s updated plan of care dated approximately four days prior to the surveyor review of the record, revealed documentation of a pain assessment that included worst pain level of 8/10 and acceptable pain level at 1/10. However, review of RR# 5’s plan of care revealed no goal for pain. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the Executive Director.”
-
Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(1))
“Observed in Record Review. In 2 of 5 patient records reviewed, During RR# 4’s patient record review it was noted the organization had not ensured the plan of care included interventions to manage symptoms. For example: review of RR# 4’s plan of care revealed RR# 4 had a PEG tube with dysphagia and unable to swallow food liquids by mouth. However, review of the RR# 4’s plan of care revealed no aspiration precautions. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the Executive Director.”
-
Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(4))
The inspectors’ words, 114 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 1 of 5 patient records reviewed, During RR# 3’s patient record review it was noted the organization had not ensured the plan of care included all the treatments necessary to meet the needs of the patient. For example: review of RR# 1’s patient record revealed RR# 3’s updated plan of care, dated approximately 11 days prior to the surveyor review of the record, revealed RR# 3 had an indwelling foley catheter with the intervention to change the foley catheter monthly. However, further review of the updated plan of care revealed not documentation on the size, type, or balloon size. This was reviewed, discussed, and validated with the Executive Director.”
Dec 2, 2024: follow-up inspection by The Joint Commission4 deficiencies
-
Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c))
The inspectors’ words, 210 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 3 of 5 patient records reviewed, the written plan of care was not based on the patient’s goals and time frames, settings, and services required to meet those goals, for example in review of the medical record for RRNHV #2 the patient had three documented wounds (left buttocks, right buttocks and right lower extremity, however there was only one problem identified on the care plan with no specific and measurable goals or interventions for each wound. In review of RRNHV # 3 there was a physician order to update the plan of care with specific wound care orders to the arterial ulcer of the left 1st toe, 4th toe and 5th metatarsal however there was no evidence of a skin integrity/wound care problem with goals and interventions on the plan of care. Additionally for RRNHV #3 the patient had a PEG tube and there were physician orders to update the plan of care with Jevity feedings and flushes however there was no evidence on the plan of care of a nutritional problem, goals or interventions. This was also observed in review of RRNHV #5 where the plan of care problems and goals were broad and not specific and measurable. and validated with the Hospice Director.”
-
Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(4))
The inspectors’ words, 164 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 1 of 5 patient records reviewed, In 1 of 14 active patient records reviewed. The plan of care had not been updated to include the wound care provided. Example: During review of HOSv#2. The plan of care had not been updated to include specific wound care orders. For example in review of RRNHV #2 the patient had three documented wounds (left buttocks, right buttocks and right lower extremity, however there was only one problem identified on the care plan with no specific and measurable goals and interventions for each wound. The plan of care included the problem: Deficit related to skin/membrane integrity AEB sacral wound and skin breakdown. Goal: sacral wound will remain free from s/s of infection and will not show signs of further progression over the next 30 days. The medical record did include Physician orders for wound care which were followed on each visit, however the plan of care had not been updated with the orders.”
-
Review of the plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(d))
The inspectors’ words, 140 words
“Observed in Record Review. In 1 of 5 patient records reviewed, the record had not documented progress towards goals. For example in review of RRNHV #2 the patient had an incision from surgery for a right leg fracture which nursing notes documented dressing changes and removal of staples.. There were care plan updates on 11/22/2024, 11/25/2024, 11/27/2024 and 12/2/2024 which included skilled nurse will provide wound care and dressing changes at each visit however the care plan updates did not include specific orders for RLE incision care or removal of staples.. The EMR did include Physician orders for wound care which were followed on each visit, however those updates were not included on the care plan. The goal remained unchanged throughout the patient’s care without documentation to reflect any progression to the goal. This was validated with the Hospice Director.”
-
Governing body and administrator (42 CFR 418.100(b))
“Observed in Leadership Session. There was no evidence that the governing body and leadership had established requirements to support patient care treatment and services as evidenced by the organization had not implemented their plan of correction and staff education to address non compliant standards and the governing body/leadership did not ensure that the following Conditions of Participation were met; 418:56. This was discussed with the Hospice Director.”
Oct 25, 2024: reaccreditation inspection by The Joint Commission9 deficiencies
-
Approach to service delivery (42 CFR 418.56(a)(1)(iii))
“Observed in Individual Tracer. During observation of the Interdisciplinary team meeting it had been identified that the MSW had been absent from the meeting. During discussion with the Director of Nursing and the Director of operations they identified that the full time MSW had moved out of the area several months ago. The current MSW had been employed on an as needed basis. The prn MSW had been unable to attend the IDG due to other employment.
The Director of Operations had been actively recruiting to replace the full time position.”
-
Governing body and administrator (42 CFR 418.100(b))
“Observed in Individual Tracer. The organization leaders had not assured that the provision of all hospice services be available to include all core services. Example: During observation of the Interdisciplinary team meeting , it was identified that the MSW had not been participating. Discussion with the Director of nursing and the Director of Operations had confirmed that the current MSW had been employed on a per diem basis but unavailable for the team meetings as required.”
-
Timeframe for completion of assessment (42 CFR 418.54(b))
The inspectors’ words, 107 words
“Observed in Individual Tracer. In 2 of 14 patient records reviewed and confirmed by the Director of Operations. The comprehensive assessment had not been completed within 5 days. During review of HOSv#3 the MSW had not completed a patient assessment . Example: The MSW had attempted to phone the patient with no answer, but there had not been any further attempt to contact the patient or family. During review of HOSrr#3 the MSW had been accepted by the patient during the initial assessment . The MSW had not provided an assessment within 5 days and there had not been any contact or refusal by the patient documented.”
-
Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c))
“Observed in Individual Tracer. In 2 of 14 patient records reviewed, Confirmed by the Director of Nursing . Patient goals had not been measurable. Example: During review of HOSv#2 care had not documented a measurable goal specific for the healing of a wound. the goal had documented the patient will achieve and maintain optimal skin integrity. During review of HOSrr#1 the goal for personal care had documented that the patient will have safe and effective bathing.”
-
Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(4))
“Observed in Individual Tracer. In 1 of 14 active patient records reviewed. The plan of care had not been updated to include the wound care provided. Example: During review of HOSv#2. The plan had documented that the wound care would be provided per physician orders.”
-
Review of the plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(d))
“Observed in Individual Tracer. In 1 of 14 active patient hospice records reviewed. Confirmed by the Director of Nursing. The patient record had not documented the progress to goal. Example: During review of record HOSv#1 the goal had identified that patient had been restless at night and agitated and to be relieved in 1 week. The goal remained unchanged for several months without documentation to reflect any progression to the goal.”
-
Medical social services (42 CFR 418.64(c))
The inspectors’ words, 98 words
“Observed in Individual Tracer. In 1 of 14 active hospice records reviewed. Social work services had not been provided based on the patient and family needs. Example: During review of HOSrr#2 the RN had identified, in the plan of care, the need for psychosocial services to be provided to the family for further education for end of life and the hospice philosophy. The frequency had stated for MSW 1xmonth prn for changes and needs. The MSW had not provided visits to the patient and family to address the need. This had been confirmed by the Director of Operations.”
-
Counseling services (42 CFR 418.64(d)(1)(iv))
“Observed in Individual Tracer. In 3 of 3 patient records reviewed, for the Bereavement Program and confirmed by the Bereavement Coordinator and the Director of Operations . A Bereavement plan of care that specified the kind of bereavement services and the frequency of the service delivery had not been developed. Example: During discussion with the Bereavement Coordinator it had been confirmed that a complete plan had not been maintained other than general information to include the deceased patient name , the survivor information and periodically hand written notes if needed.”
-
Label dispose storage drugs (42 CFR 418.106(e)(3)(ii))
The inspectors’ words, 103 words
“Observed in Building Tour. During the Hospice inpatient document review, it had been identified that the documentation for the inpatient medication refrigeration temperature levels had not been documented consistently, Example: During the month of April the medication refrigerator had not documented the temperature for half of the month, Weekends had been missed in May over the weekends . The agency policy had not documented a plan based on manufacturer, state, federal or Pharmacy input as to the proper temperature logs to be maintained for Promethazine and Tylenol suppositories. This had been confirmed by the Director of operations per policy to be completed daily.”
All 4 inspections in the last three years
| Date | Visit | What the record says |
|---|---|---|
| Feb 20, 2026 | Complaint inspection by the state | No deficiencies cited |
| Dec 30, 2024 | Follow-up inspection by The Joint Commission | 3 deficiencies cited |
| Dec 2, 2024 | Follow-up inspection by The Joint Commission | 4 deficiencies cited |
| Oct 25, 2024 | Reaccreditation inspection by The Joint Commission | 9 deficiencies cited |
Is it certified?
- Medicare-certified hospice since Dec 3, 2008.
- Ownership: for-profit.
- Cited at 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. in the last three years: it didn’t meet a whole condition of Medicare’s rules.
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): 14.7 nurse care minutes per routine home care day, 17.3% of skilled nursing minutes at weekends and a visit near death for 88.3% of patients who died.
- Where its patients were cared for (Jan 1, 2024 to Dec 31, 2024): 79% at home, 1% in assisted living, 4% in a nursing facility, 1% in a hospital, 14% in an inpatient hospice, 1% elsewhere.
CMS, Hospice Provider Data. Released Aug 26, 2026. Updated quarterly.
| Measure | This provider |
|---|---|
| Nurse care minutes per routine home care day | 14.7 min |
| Skilled nursing minutes at weekends | 17.3% |
| Visits near death | 88.3% of patients who died |
Who owns it?
- 14 owners or officers are people: John Fernandez (managing employee (on the payroll), 100%); John Fernandez (runs it (operational or managerial control), 100%); Stephanie Arroyo (managing employee (on the payroll), 100%); Stephanie Arroyo (runs it (operational or managerial control), 100%); Cynthia Acosta (managing employee (on the payroll), 100%); Cynthia Acosta (runs it (operational or managerial control), 100%); Eric Lee Madarang (managing employee (on the payroll), 100%); Brent Lee Pennington (managing employee (on the payroll), 100%); Stephanie Cruz (managing employee (on the payroll), 100%); Blanch Estella Fernandez (owns 5% or more directly, 100%); Blanch Estella Fernandez (corporate officer, 100%); Blanch Estella Fernandez (corporate director, 100%); Blanch Estella Fernandez (managing employee (on the payroll), 100%); Johnny Fernandez (corporate director).
- No private-equity firm 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.
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 84% would definitely recommend it.
- CMS’s Hospice Care Index: 10 of 10 (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024).
- 87.54% of patients were assessed on all seven of CMS’s measures at the start of care (Oct 1, 2024 to Sep 30, 2025); 28.2% 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 | 3 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 threshold | 10 of 10 |
How does it compare nearby?
- Of the 38 hospices CMS’s data show serving patients in ZIP code 78415, where this hospice’s office is, the middle number of deficiencies cited in the last three years was 5; this one had 16.
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 |
|---|---|
| Angel Bright Hospice Inc. This hospice | 16 |
| Christus Hospice and Palliative Care Spohn | 0 |
| Nurses on Wheels Home Health and Hospice | 0 |
| Choice Health at Home | 4 |
| Legacy Home Health Agency Inc. | Not given |
| Gentiva | 6 |
| New Century Hospice of South Texas | 23 |
| Altus Hospice | 6 |
| Harbor Hospice of Corpus Christi LP | 5 |
| Aadi Home Health and Hospice | 10 |
| Elara Caring | 0 |
| Trio Hospice Inc. | 7 |
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 Oct 27, 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 Oct 27, 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 Oct 27, 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 Oct 27, 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 Oct 27, 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 Oct 27, 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 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.