Hearth Record

Eden Hospice

A hospice in Bellingham, Washington 98226

316 E Mcleod Rd Ste 104, Bellingham, Washington 98226. (360) 892-6628.

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 52 deficiencies in 1 month of the last 36. Last cited Jul 2024. Most serious: Condition-level. Every month

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

What these words mean3
Inspection (survey)
A visit by state inspectors, often unannounced, who check a place against the rules it must meet. For nursing homes and other places Medicare pays, CMS calls these visits surveys: a standard survey of a nursing home comes at least every 15 months, and a complaint survey whenever a complaint calls for one. Source: CMS; 42 CFR 488.308.
Deficiency, citation, violation
What inspectors write up when a place didn’t meet a rule: the rule, what they saw, and when. CMS calls it a deficiency; states may say citation or violation. It is the inspectors’ finding, not a court’s, and the place is usually asked for a plan to correct it. Source: CMS, statement of deficiencies (Form CMS-2567); each state’s licensing agency.
Condition-level deficiency
For hospices, home health agencies, hospitals and dialysis facilities, CMS writes deficiencies at two levels. Standard is the usual one; condition-level is the more serious, when a problem is serious enough that the provider doesn’t meet a whole condition of taking part in Medicare. Source: CMS, State Operations Manual.

What did inspectors find?

52 deficiencies cited in the last three years

The middle of the 4 hospices serving ZIP code 98226 had 8.5.

The last inspection on record was on Sep 11, 2024: a follow-up inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care.

4 deficiencies at condition level, the more serious of CMS’s two levels

Source:

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

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

When those deficiencies happened

52 deficiencies in 1 month of the last 36. Last cited Jul 2024. Most serious: Condition-level. The last 3 years, to Oct 27, 2026.

52 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.

Jul 31, 2024: reaccreditation inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care52 deficiencies
  • Patients rights (42 CFR 418.52)

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

    Rule L0500. Condition-level.

  • Quality assessment & performance improvement (42 CFR 418.58)

    “Upon observation, there was no evidence the organization develops, implements, and maintains an effective, on-going, organization wide Quality Assessment and Performance Improvement (QAPI) program.”

    Rule L0559. Condition-level.

  • Hospice aide and homemaker services (42 CFR 418.76)

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

    Rule L0607. Condition-level.

  • Organizational environment (42 CFR 418.100)

    “Condition of Participation: Organization and Administration of Services.”

    Rule L0648. Condition-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 110 words

    “Upon patient record review, 3 of 14 (Patient #3,5,7) did not have evidence that the hospice informed and provided written information to the patient concerning its policies on advance directives, including a description of applicable state law. Patient #3, Patient signed own consents. MD statement on CTI documents Parkinson dementia. Election of benefit date was patient date of birth and no evidence of date of election. Patient #5, Patient signed own consents. Initial RN assessment documents patient is confused, distracted easily, memory loss and starts his sentence in English and ends in German. Patient #7, Patient signed own consents, Initial RN assessment documents oriented to person, place, forgetful and confused.”

    Rule L0503. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 107 words

    “Upon patient record review, 3 of 14 (Patient #3,5,7) did not have evidence that the hospice obtained the patient’s or representative’s signature confirming that they received a copy of the Patient’s Rights and Responsibilities. Patient #3, Patient signed own consents. MD statement on CTI documents Parkinson dementia. Election of benefit date was patient date of birth and no evidence of date of election. Patient #5, Patient signed own consents. Initial RN assessment documents patient is confused, distracted easily, memory loss and starts his sentence in English and ends in German. Patient #7, Patient signed own consents, Initial RN assessment documents oriented to person, place, forgetful and confused.”

    Rule L0504. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 121 words

    “Upon patient record review, 3 of 14 (Patient #3,5,7) did not have evidence that if a state court has not adjudged a patient incompetent, any legal representative designated by the patient in accordance with state law may exercise the patient’s rights to the extent allowed by state law. Patient #3, Patient signed own consents. MD statement on CTI documents Parkinson dementia. Election of benefit date was patient date of birth and no evidence of date of election. Patient #5, Patient signed own consents. Initial RN assessment documents patient is confused, distracted easily, memory loss and starts his sentence in English and ends in German. Patient #7, Patient signed own consents, Initial RN assessment documents oriented to person, place, forgetful and confused.”

    Rule L0507. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 98 words

    “Upon patient record review, 3 of 14 (Patient #3,5,7) did not have evidence that the patient chooses a health care provider, including an attending physician. Patient #3, Patient signed own consents. MD statement on CTI documents Parkinson dementia. Election of benefit date was patient date of birth and no evidence of date of election. Patient #5, Patient signed own consents. Initial RN assessment documents patient is confused, distracted easily, memory loss and starts his sentence in English and ends in German. Patient #7, Patient signed own consents, Initial RN assessment documents oriented to person, place, forgetful and confused.”

    Rule L0515. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 95 words

    “Upon patient record review, 3 of 14 (Patient #3,5,7) did not have evidence of the appropriate documentation for release of confidential information. Patient #3, Patient signed own consents. MD statement on CTI documents Parkinson dementia. Election of benefit date was patient date of birth and no evidence of date of election. Patient #5, Patient signed own consents. Initial RN assessment documents patient is confused, distracted easily, memory loss and starts his sentence in English and ends in German. Patient #7, Patient signed own consents, Initial RN assessment documents oriented to person, place, forgetful and confused.”

    Rule L0516. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 128 words

    “Upon patient record review, 7 of 14 (Patient #1,3,4,5,7,8,13) did not have evidence that the patient received information about the services covered under the hospice benefit. Patient #3, Patient signed own consents. MD statement on CTI documents Parkinson dementia. Election of benefit date was patient date of birth and no evidence of date of election. Patient #5, Patient signed own consents. Initial RN assessment documents patient is confused, distracted easily, memory loss and starts his sentence in English and ends in German. Patient #7, Patient signed own consents, Initial RN assessment documents oriented to person, place, forgetful and confused. Patient #1,3, Hospice financial agreement, no evidence of financial responsibility documented on agreement. Patient #4, 8,13,Hospice financial agreement, no evidence of payor source or financial responsibility documented on agreement.”

    Rule L0518. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 107 words

    “Upon patient record review, 3 of 14 (Patient #3,5,7) did not have evidence that the patient received information about the scope of services that the hospice will provide and specific limitations on those services. Patient #3, Patient signed own consents. MD statement on CTI documents Parkinson dementia. Election of benefit date was patient date of birth and no evidence of date of election. Patient #5, Patient signed own consents. Initial RN assessment documents patient is confused, distracted easily, memory loss and starts his sentence in English and ends in German. Patient #7, Patient signed own consents, Initial RN assessment documents oriented to person, place, forgetful and confused.”

    Rule L0519. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 115 words

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 14 (Patient #2) did not have evidence in the patient record that a review was completed of all prescription and non-prescription medications, including herbal remedies that could affect drug therapy. This review includes, but is not limited to: • Effectiveness of drug therapy • Drug side effects • Actual or potential drug interactions • Duplicate drug therapy • Drug therapy currently associated with laboratory monitoring Patient #2, No evidence medication profile updated for over 3 weeks upon home visit. Patient is using new skin which is not on the medication profile instead of hydrogel topical. Patient is no long taking aspirin or Lipitor which is currently on medication profile.”

    Rule L0530. Standard-level.

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

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 14 (Patient #10) 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 #10, Patient has documented wound, RN documents completed by facility nurse. No evidence of wound assessment on initial RN assessment.”

    Rule L0540. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 173 words

    “Upon patient record review, 2 of 14 (Patient #1,5) 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 #1, Agency has lives alone addendum to admission agreement which states; if I live alone I/or POA will have medial alert operations available should I choose to live alone. No evidence of medical alert operations documented on care plan. In addition, RN initial assessment documents patient rates their pain at a 10 out of 10. Questions asks was the MD contacted, RN documents no. RN documented instructed on the use of pain medications however, no update to the POC with problems/goals/interventions. Patient #5, No evidence of care plan for straight catheter required when and who would provide.”

    Rule L0545. Standard-level.

  • Content of plan of care (42 CFR 418.56(c)(1))

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 14 (Patient #1) did not have evidence that the plan of care includes all services necessary for the palliation and management of the terminal illness and related conditions which including interventions to manage pain and symptoms. Patient #1, RN initial assessment documents patient rates their pain at a 10 out of 10. Questions asks was the MD contacted, RN documents no. RN documented instructed on the use of pain medications.”

    Rule L0546. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 120 words

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 14 (Patient #5) 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 #5, MD order 7/18/24 states insert Foley add visit for Friday for follow up. There was not an indication of the quantity of visits.”

    Rule L0547. Standard-level.

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

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 14 (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, No evidence of orders. Upon home visit, identified patient is using new skin which is not on the medication profile instead of hydrogel topical. Patient is no long taking aspirin or Lipitor.”

    Rule L0549. Standard-level.

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

    “Upon patient record review, 2 of 14 (Patient #3,10) 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 #3, Plan of care documented DME as none, RN initial assessment documents patient has raised toilet seat, walker, w/c, shower chair. Patient #10, DME documents none, per RN note patient has hospital bed, air mattress, alternating, over bed table and bed rails.”

    Rule L0550. Standard-level.

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

    “Upon patient record review, 2 of 14 (Patient #1,6) did not have evidenc.e 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 #1, No evidence of Foley catheter and UTI updated on plan of care. Patient #6, No evidence of nurse to assist with ostomy bag changes 2x/week was updated on care plan. No evidence of patient having increased confusion and member problems updated on care plan.”

    Rule L0553. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 213 words

    “Upon client record review, 5 of 10 (Patient #1,4,5,8,10) did not have evidence that the IDG ensures that the care and services are provided in accordance with the plan of care. Patient #1, MSW visit completed initial assessment as a telephone visit. No evidence of order for telephone visit. 7/19/24 RN order for daily RN visits ( this order was rejected by the DPS without any documentation or MD order to cancel this order). No evidence of RN visit on 7/20, 7/21, 7/25. LVN made a visit on 7/22/24. No evidence this visit was completed by RN. In addition, on 7/17/24 12 F catheter inserted, on 7/22/24 catheter had fallen out and a 14 F catheter was placed without order for change in size of catheter. Patient #4, MSW frequency 1w1 effective 6/5/24. MSW visit completed on 6/11/24. No evidence visit was completed in the first week. Patient #5, MSW frequency 1w1 effective 5/30/24. MSW visit completed on 6/13/24. No evidence visit was completed in the first week. SC frequency 1w1 effective 5/30/24. SC visit completed on 6/6/24. No evidence visit was completed in the first week. Patient #8, SC frequency 1w1 effective 7/23/24. No evidence of SC visit completed. Patient #10, SC frequency 1w1 effective 7/10/24. No evidence of SC visit completed.”

    Rule L0555. Standard-level.

  • Program scope (42 CFR 418.58(a)(1))

    “Upon observation, there was no evidence the program shows measurable improvement in indicators related to improved palliative outcomes and hospice services.”

    Rule L0561. Standard-level.

  • Program data (42 CFR 418.58(b)(1))

    “Upon observation, there was no evidence the program must use quality indicator data, including patient care, and other relevant data, in the design of the program.”

    Rule L0563. Standard-level.

  • Program data (42 CFR 418.58(b)(2))

    “Upon observation, there was no evidence the QAPI program uses quality indicator data, including patient care and other relevant data in the design of its program. The hospice must use the data collected to: • Monitor the effectiveness and safety of services and quality of care • Identify opportunities and priorities for improvement”

    Rule L0564. Standard-level.

  • Program data (42 CFR 418.58(b)(3))

    “Upon observation, there was no evidence the board of directors/governing body approves the frequency and detail of the data collection. No evidence the governing body approved the frequency and detail of the data collection.”

    Rule L0565. Standard-level.

  • Program activities (42 CFR 418.58(c)(1)(i))

    “Upon observation, there was no evidence QAPI activities focus on high risk ,high volume, or problem prone areas.”

    Rule L0566. Standard-level.

  • Program activities (42 CFR 418.58(c)(1)(ii))

    “Upon observation, there was no evidence Quality Assessment and Performance Improvement activities focus on high risk, high volume or problem-prone areas by considering incidence, prevalence, and the severity of problems.”

    Rule L0567. Standard-level.

  • Program activities (42 CFR 418.58(c)(1)(iii))

    “Upon observation, there was no evidence Quality Assessment and Performance Improvement activities focus on high risk, high volume or problem-prone areas by understanding how they affect palliative outcomes, patient safety and quality of care. No evidence of high risk, high volume area.”

    Rule L0568. Standard-level.

  • Performance improvement projects (42 CFR 418.58(d)(1))

    “Upon observation, there was no evidence the number and scope of distinct QAPI projects conducted annually is based on the needs of the hospice’s population and internal organizational needs and must reflect the scope, complexity, and past performance of the hospice’s services and operations.”

    Rule L0572. Standard-level.

  • Performance improvement projects (42 CFR 418.58(d)(2))

    “Upon observation, there was no evidence the hospice documents what QAPI projects are being conducted, the reasons for conducting these projects, and the measurable progress achieved on these projects.”

    Rule L0573. Standard-level.

  • Executive responsibilities (42 CFR 418.58(e)(1))

    “Upon observation, there was no evidence of involvement of the governing body and organizational leaders in the Quality Assessment/Performance Improvement (QAPI) program.”

    Rule L0574. Standard-level.

  • Executive responsibilities (42 CFR 418.58(e)(2))

    “Upon observation, there was no evidence the hospice’s governing body is responsible for ensuring that the hospice-wide Quality Assessment and Performance Improvement efforts address priorities for improved quality of care and patient safety, and that all improvement actions are evaluated for effectiveness.”

    Rule L0575. Standard-level.

  • Prevention (42 CFR 418.60(a))

    The inspectors’ words, 112 words

    “Upon observation, there was no evidence the hospice follows acceptable standards of practice to prevent the transmission of infections and communicable diseases, including standard precautions. Patient #1, MSW sat her hospice bag on patient’s bed without a barrier to lay down the barrier pad on the floor to place bag on the floor. Patient #2, RN placed roller bag on barrier then laid clean barrier next to roller bag to lay out clean items. Upon taking the blood pressure, RN needed to stand where the wife was sitting. The wife walked to the other side of the patient and stepped right in the middle of the clean area that was laid out.”

    Rule L0579. Standard-level.

  • Control (42 CFR 418.60(b)(1))

    “Upon observation, there was no evidence in QAPI reports that the hospice maintains a coordinated agency-wide program for the surveillance, identification, prevention, control, and investigation of infectious and communicable diseases that is an integral part of the hospice’s Quality Assessment and Performance Improvement program.”

    Rule L0580. Standard-level.

  • Competency evaluation (42 CFR 418.76(c)(3))

    “Upon observation, there was no evidence the Home Health Aide competency evaluation is performed by a Registered Nurse in consultation with other skilled professionals, as appropriate. No evidence of competency evaluation performed by Registered Nurse. LVN completed aide competency.”

    Rule L0617. Standard-level.

  • In-service training (42 CFR 418.76(d)(1))

    “Upon observation, there was no evidence in-service training for Hospice Aides are supervised by a Registered Nurse. All hospice aide in-service training is completed on line. No evidence of training supervised by RN.”

    Rule L0621. Standard-level.

  • In-service training (42 CFR 418.76(d)(2))

    “Upon observation, there was no evidence the hospice must maintain a written description of the in-service training provided during the previous 12 months. No evidence of written description of the in-service training provided the previous 12 months.”

    Rule L0622. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 182 words

    “Upon patient record review, 1 of 14 (Patient #6) did not have evidence in the patient record that hospice aide assignments and duties are: • Assigned to a specific patient by a registered nurse that is a member of the interdisciplinary group • Written patient care instructions for a hospice aide must be prepared by a Registered Nurse who is responsible for the supervision of a hospice aide as specified under paragraph (h) of 418.76 • There is evidence in the patient record that the plan of care; indicate what tasks are to be done by the Aide and the frequency of these tasks. The use of “PRN” or “per patient choice”, for any task, whether personal care or non-personal care tasks, are not acceptable Patient #6, Aide care plan documents patient is cognitive and physically able to choose between two bed bath types. No evidence of bath type or why they are able to choose between the two baths. IDG note on 7/10/24 documented by RN states, patient having increased confusion and memory problems. No evidence aide care plan was updated.”

    Rule L0625. Standard-level.

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

    The inspectors’ words, 141 words

    “Upon patient record review 4 of 14 (Patient #,6,7,9,10) did not have evidence documentation in the patient record that a hospice aide provides services that are: • Ordered by the interdisciplinary group • Included in the plan of care • Permitted to be performed under state law by such hospice aide • Consistent with the hospice aide training Patient #6, Aide note documents nail care and shaving as no. Patient #7, Aide note 7/29 documents transfer bed to chair; no, transfer chair to bed; no, assist to commode; no, nail care; no. Patient #9, Aide note documents 5/14 shower, hair care, shaving, nail care, dressing as no. Patient #10, Aide documented on 7/12 bed bath, hair care, perineal care not completed as up in w/c. Aide documented assisted to dining room, no evidence this was a direction on patient care plan.”

    Rule L0626. Standard-level.

  • Cost saving (42 CFR 418.78(d))

    The inspectors’ words, 94 words

    “Upon observation, there was no evidence the hospice documented the cost savings achieved through the use of volunteers. Documentation must include the following: • The identification of each position that is occupied by a volunteer • The work time spent by volunteers occupying those positions • Estimates of the dollar costs that the hospice would have incurred if paid employees occupied the positions identified in paragraph (d)(1) of CFR 418.78 for the amount of time specified in paragraph (d)(2) of CFR 418.78 No evidence of the cost savings achieved through the use of volunteers.”

    Rule L0646. 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 of agency meeting the 5% volunteer hours. Volunteer hours for end for 2023 4.11%.”

    Rule L0647. Standard-level.

  • Governing body and administrator (42 CFR 418.100(b))

    “Upon observation, there was no evidence the hospice is directed by a Board of Directors/governing body which assumes full legal authority and responsibility for the operation of the hospice, aeb no documentation of qualified administrator appointed which is also a requirement per the state of Washington, located in WAC 246-335-615. In addition, now evidence of job description for alternate administrator, oversight of QAPI and infection control reporting to QAPI, as well as consents/election of benefits signed by person capable of making informed decisions.”

    Rule L0651. Standard-level.

  • Governing body and administrator (42 CFR 418.100(b))

    “Upon personnel record review, 1 of 14 (Personnel #2 ) did not have evidence the alternate administrator’s personnel record verifies that: • The employee has appropriate education and experience requirements • There is a signed job description for this role • The employee has been orientated to this role Personnel #2, No evidence of signed job description for Alt Administrator.”

    Rule L0651. Standard-level.

  • Training (42 CFR 418.100(g)(1))

    “Upon personnel record review, 2 of 13 (Personnel #7,8 ) did not have evidence the hospice employees and contract employees have received orientation on the hospice philosophy. Personnel #7,8, No evidence of hospice philosophy noted in HR chart.”

    Rule L0661. Standard-level.

  • Medical director contract (42 CFR 418.102(a))

    “Upon contract review, 2 of 4 (Medical Director and Alternate Medical Director contracts) did not have evidence of a contract to fulfill the role of medical director or alternate medical director, if applicable. Contract #1,2, Medical Director contract identified both the Med Director and the Alt Med Director names on the contract. The Alt Medical Director contract identified the business name of the providers. Both contracts were corrected while on survey to each contract having the appropriate name per role.”

    Rule L0666. Standard-level.

  • Content (42 CFR 418.104(a)(2))

    The inspectors’ words, 113 words

    “Upon patient client record review, 3 of 14 (Patient #3,5,7) did not have evidence that each patient record contains: • Signed copies of the notice of patient rights in accordance with 418.52 • Signed election statement in accordance with 418.24 Patient #3, Patient signed own consents. MD statement on CTI documents Parkinson dementia. Election of benefit date was patient date of birth and no evidence of date of election. Patient #5, Patient signed own consents. Initial RN assessment documents patient is confused, distracted easily, memory loss and starts his sentence in English and ends in German. Patient #7, Patient signed own consents, Initial RN assessment documents oriented to person, place, forgetful and confused.”

    Rule L0673. Standard-level.

  • Content (42 CFR 418.104(a)(6))

    “Upon patient client record review, 1 of 14 (Patient #14) did not have evidence that each patient record contains Advance Directives. Patient #14, No evidence advanced directive was documented as having or not on consents.”

    Rule L0677. Standard-level.

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

    “Upon client record review, 1 of 14 (Patient #12) did not have evidence that if a patient revokes the election of hospice care or is discharged from hospice in accordance with §418.26, the hospice must forward to the patient’s attending physician: • A copy of the hospice discharge summary • The patient’s clinical record, if requested Patient #12, No evidence of discharge summary or that it was faxed to attending physician.”

    Rule L0683. Standard-level.

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

    “Upon client record review, 1 of 14 (Patient #12) did not have evidence that the discharge summary includes all required information. Patient #12, No evidence of discharge summary or that it was faxed to MD.”

    Rule L0684. Standard-level.

  • Ordering of drugs (42 CFR 418.106(b)(2))

    The inspectors’ words, 127 words

    “Upon patient record review,1 of 14 (Patient #1) did not have evidence that if a drug order is verbal or given via an electronic transmission, it is given to a Registered Nurse, Nurse Practitioner, pharmacist, physician or other licensed individuals as designated by state regulations. The person receiving the order records and signs it immediately and has the prescribing person sign it in accordance with state and federal regulations. Patient #1, Patient had catheter order for insertion documented in nurses note on 7/17/24. No evidence of written order until 7/29/24 after chart was reviewed. The order on 7/29/24 reads verbal order from Dr. Brogan on 7/17/24 to insert an indwelling Foley catheter due to no urine output in over 24 hours and patient history of urinary retention.”

    Rule L0690. Standard-level.

  • Label dispose storage drugs (42 CFR 418.106(e)(2)(i)(A))

    The inspectors’ words, 106 words

    “Upon observation, there was no evidence a copy is provided of the hospice written policies and procedures on the management and disposal of controlled drugs to the patient or patient representative and family. Patient #3, Patient signed own consents. MD statement on CTI documents Parkinson dementia. Election of benefit date was patient date of birth and no evidence of date of election. Patient #5, Patient signed own consents. Initial RN assessment documents patient is confused, distracted easily, memory loss and starts his sentence in English and ends in German. Patient #7, Patient signed own consents, Initial RN assessment documents oriented to person, place, forgetful and confused.”

    Rule L0695. Standard-level.

  • Label dispose storage drugs (42 CFR 418.106(e)(2)(i)(B))

    The inspectors’ words, 128 words

    “Upon observation, there was no evidence the hospice discussed the policies and procedures for managing the safe use and disposal of controlled drugs with the patient or representative and the family in a language and manner that they understand to ensure that these parties are educated regarding the safe use and disposal of controlled drugs. Patient #3, Patient signed own consents. MD statement on CTI documents Parkinson dementia. Election of benefit date was patient date of birth and no evidence of date of election. Patient #5, Patient signed own consents. Initial RN assessment documents patient is confused, distracted easily, memory loss and starts his sentence in English and ends in German. Patient #7, Patient signed own consents, Initial RN assessment documents oriented to person, place, forgetful and confused.”

    Rule L0696. Standard-level.

  • Label dispose storage drugs (42 CFR 418.106(e)(2)(i)(C))

    The inspectors’ words, 100 words

    “Upon client record review, 3 of 14 (Patient #3,5,7) did not have evidence that the written policies and procedures for managing controlled drugs was provided and discussed. Patient #3, Patient signed own consents. MD statement on CTI documents Parkinson dementia. Election of benefit date was patient date of birth and no evidence of date of election. Patient #5, Patient signed own consents. Initial RN assessment documents patient is confused, distracted easily, memory loss and starts his sentence in English and ends in German. Patient #7, Patient signed own consents, Initial RN assessment documents oriented to person, place, forgetful and confused.”

    Rule L0697. Standard-level.

All 2 inspections in the last three years
Inspections on record
DateVisitWhat the record says
Sep 11, 2024Follow-up inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health CareNo deficiencies cited
Jul 31, 2024Reaccreditation inspection by the Accreditation Commission for Health Care52 deficiencies cited

Is it certified?

  • Medicare-certified hospice since Aug 30, 2021.
  • 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.
  • 0 deficiencies cited in the last three years came from inspections that included a complaint investigation.
Source:

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

Who does the caring?

  • From Medicare claims (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024): 14.4 nurse care minutes per routine home care day, 3.8% of skilled nursing minutes at weekends and a visit near death for 87.8% of patients who died.
  • Where its patients were cared for (Jan 1, 2024 to Dec 31, 2024): 55% at home, 42% in assisted living, 1% 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 day14.4 min
Skilled nursing minutes at weekends3.8%
Visits near death87.8% of patients who died

Who owns it?

  • Empres Hospice, LLC owns 100% directly since Nov 1, 2020.
  • Empres Financial Services LLC and Eden Healthcare Management, LLC run it.
  • 6 owners or officers are people: Jamie Brown (corporate officer, 100%); Jessica Yoos (managing employee (on the payroll), 100%); Lynn Case (managing employee (on the payroll), 100%); Robert Martin (managing employee (on the payroll), 100%); Michael J Miller (corporate officer, 100%); Brent Weil (corporate officer).
  • 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
Empres Healthcare Group Inc.Owns 5% or more through other companies100%Nov 1, 2020
Empres Home and Hospice LLCOwns 5% or more through other companies100%Nov 1, 2020
Greatbanc Trust CompanyOther role (CMS gives no detail)100%Nov 1, 2020
Midcap Financial TrustHolds 5% or more security interest100%Nov 1, 2020
Empres Financial Services LLCRuns it (operational or managerial control)100%Nov 1, 2020
Empres Hospice, LLCOwns 5% or more directly100%Nov 1, 2020
Eden Healthcare Management, LLCRuns it (operational or managerial control)100%Jul 1, 2023
Empres Healthcare Group, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership TrustOwns 5% or more through other companies100%Nov 1, 2020

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): 84% rated it 9 or 10 out of 10, and 86% would definitely recommend it.
  • CMS’s Hospice Care Index: 7 of 10 (Jan 1, 2023 to Dec 31, 2024).
  • 92.81% of patients were assessed on all seven of CMS’s measures at the start of care (Oct 1, 2024 to Sep 30, 2025); 50% 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 5Not 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 threshold7 of 10

How does it compare nearby?

  • Of the 4 hospices CMS’s data show serving patients in ZIP code 98226, where this hospice’s office is, the middle number of deficiencies cited in the last three years was 8.5; this one had 52.
Source:

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

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

The 4 hospices CMS lists serving ZIP code 98226
PlaceDeficiencies, 3 years
Eden Hospice This hospice52
Whatcom Hospice12
Hospice of the Northwest5
Whidbeyhealth Hospice and Palliative Care3

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.