Arbrook Plaza

Location & what’s nearby

Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

53.9% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 152 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

Met the expected recovery: 60.3% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 68 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.49 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 80% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 44% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

Staffing

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 120 beds and averages 93.7 residents a day — about 78% occupied, or roughly 26 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.45 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.40 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.16 is below the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.

Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.92 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.66 on weekdays — 20% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.34 to 0.57 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 48% is about the same as the national median of 45%.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

25 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 15 are one tap away and print in full.

• Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-05-08 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — pattern
  Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights , that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment for 8 (Resident #1, Resident #2, Resident #3, Resident #4, Resident #5, Resident #6, Resident #7 and Resident #8 and Resident# 9) of 9 residents reviewed.The facility failed to update each resident person-centered comprehensive care plan to reflect the need for EBP. This failure could place residents at risk of infection.Findings included:Record review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated [DATE] reflected he was a [AGE] year-old male who was initially admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. He was diagnosed with epilepsy, unspecified not intractable without status epilepticus (a neurological disorder characterized by recurrent, unprovoked seizures),…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-05-08 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
  Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infection for 1 (Resident #1) of 2 residents reviewed for infection control.The facility failed on 05/08/26 to ensure infection control procedures were followed when CNA A and RA B provided perineal care to Resident #1, who was on enhanced barrier precautions, without donning appropriate PPE. This failure could place residents at risk of infection.Findings included:Record review of the Nursing Home Infection Preventionist Training course (web-based) certificate, revealed LVN C completed training on 05/20/2021.Record review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 05/08/26 reflected he was an [AGE] year-old male who was initially admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. He was diagnosed with epilepsy, unspecified not intractable…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-01-15 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — pattern
  Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights, that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment for 3 (Resident #1, Resident #51, Resident #111) of 5 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to ensure the Care Plans for Resident #1, Resident #51, and Resident #111 reflected the use of grab/assist bars, the goal of having the grab/assist bars on the resident's beds, and the interventions previously attempted. This deficient practice could place residents in the facility at risk of not being provided with the necessary care or services and the implementation of personalized plan of care developed to address their specific needs. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 1/14/2026, revealed resident was…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2026-01-15 · tag F0700 — pattern
  Try different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to assess the resident for appropriateness and review the risks and benefits of grab/assist bars (smaller bars used by the person in bed to reposition themselves), with the resident or resident representative and obtain informed consent prior to installation or assess for appropriateness for 4 (Resident #1, Resident #32, Resident #51, and Resident #111) of 5 residents observed and reviewed for grab/assist bars. The facility failed to have evidence of informed consent for Resident #1 and Resident #32's grab/enabler bars to be placed on the bed. The facility failed to have evidence of assessment for Resident #1, Resident #51, and Resident #111 for risk of entrapment and ability to safely use the grab/enabler bars. These failures could affect residents who used grab/assist bars at risk of the resident/responsible party not being aware of the risks, informed consent not being obtained from the resident or responsible party, and assessments not…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2026-01-15 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — pattern
  Ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure, in accordance with State and Federal laws, all drugs and biologicals were stored in locked compartments under proper temperature controls and permit only authorized personnel to have access to the keys for three of six (Med Cart #1, Med Cart #2, and Med Cart #3) medication carts reviewed for storage of medication 1. LVN B left Med Cart #1 unlocked and unattended on 01/13/26. 2. Med Aide D failed to secure 5 medications before leaving Med Cart #2 unattended outside Resident #3's room on 01/13/26. 3. Med Aide E failed to ensure Med Cart #3 was free of brown and black sticky substance and brown dust particles in the compartment that had medicine cups and water cups in it on 01/14/26. These failures could place residents at risk of their medications being stolen or misused and health complications related to accidental ingestion of drugs and/or biologicals, including hospitalization. Findings included: 1.During an observation on…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-01-15 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolated
  Ensure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record reviewed the facility failed to ensure appropriate care and services to prevent complications of enteral feeding for one (Resident #75) of three residents reviewed for enteral tube feeding, in that; LVN C failed to ensure Resident #75 was not flat in bed during repositioning while his enteral feeding was still connected and running. This failure placed residents with enteral feedings at risk of receiving inappropriate care and maintenance which could result in fluid overload, vomiting, aspiration (entering the airways or lungs), and hospitalization. Findings Included: Record review of Resident #75's face sheet dated 01/14/26 revealed a [AGE] year-old male who initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included cerebral palsy (this is a congenital disorder of movement, muscle tone and posture) and gastrostomy status (this is a feeding tube that is placed through the abdominal cavity area into the stomach for nutritional purpose…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-01-15 · tag F0813 — isolated
  Have a policy regarding use and storage of foods brought to residents by family and other visitors.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to have a policy regarding use and storage of foods brought to residents by family and other visitors to ensure safe and sanitary storage, handling, and consumption for 1 (Residents #4) of 1 resident reviewed for refrigerator in the rooms. The facility failed to place a thermometer in Residents #4's refrigerator and monitor the temperature. This failure could affect residents by placing them at risk for food-borne illnesses. Finding included: Record review of Resident # 4's face sheet, dated 01/15/26 revealed an [AGE] year old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a primary diagnosis of unspecified sequelae of Cerebral infarction (this is a condition that is not specified but started due to long term effect of stroke such as cognitive, speech issues, emotional issues, and memory loss). Her secondary diagnosis was Dementia. Record review of Resident #4's admission MDS dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 8, which indicated…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2026-01-15 · tag F0919 — failed to provide a working call system — isolated
  Make sure that a working call system is available in each resident's bathroom and bathing area.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents resided and received services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences for one (Resident #3) of fifteen reviewed for call lights. The facility failed to ensure Resident #3's call button was not broken and placed within reach.These failures could place residents at risk for needs not being met, decreased quality of life, self-worth and dignity.Findings included: Record review of Resident #3's face sheet, dated 01/14/26, reflected a [AGE] year-old male who initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included unspecified encephalopathy (this is a brain disease that alters brain function or structure), hyperlipidemia (elevated level of lipids, like cholesterol in the blood), and Type 2 diabetes (a problem in the way the body regulates and uses sugar as fuel). Record review of Resident #3's comprehensive MDS Assessment, dated 12/02/25 reflected no…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Environmental Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · E2025-01-23 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — pattern
  Honor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  Based on observation, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to provide housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to maintain a sanitary, orderly, and comfortable interior for 10 (main dining room) of 25 residents served in the facility only resident dining room reviewed for environmental conditions. The facility staff failed to ensure on 01/23/25 the dining room trash was covered with a lid, and the vacuum cleaner was clean and stored away from residents that were dining for lunch. This failure could place residents at risk of living in an unsafe, unsanitary, and uncomfortable environment. The findings included: Observations on 01/23/25 from 12:30 p.m. to 1:00 p.m., of the facility dining room revealed the following: -The housekeeping vacuum cleaner (blue/black) was observed with gray cotton type particles and brown powder in placed behind 4 residents waiting to be served lunch. - The dining room trashcan was not covered with the lid on the south wall behind 3 residents waiting to be served lunch. In an interview on 01/23/25 at 3:05 PM., the HSKS stated…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
• Potential for harm · D2025-01-23 · tag F0694 — isolated
  Provide for the safe, appropriate administration of IV fluids for a resident when needed.
  What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

  NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure parenteral fluids were administered consistent with professional standards of practice and in accordance with physician orders for one (Residents #44) of three residents reviewed for parenteral fluids. The facility failed to ensure on 01/23/25 that Resident #44 received IV hydration per parental fluids professional standards by labeling and dating the solution at the time of administration. This failure placed the residents at risk for infections, wrong dose, and clinical monitoring of doses. Findings included: Review of Resident 44's face sheet dated 01/23/25 reflected he was a [AGE] year-old male that was admitted on [DATE]. The residents DX included: Kidney Failure, Chronic Pain, Cyst (cyst is a sac-like pocket of membranous tissue that contains fluid,) on Kidney, Type 2 Diabetes mellitus (Type 2 diabetes is a condition that causes high blood sugar), Anemia (Anemia is a blood disorder that occurs when the body doesn't have enough…

  This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

  Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to HMG HEALTHCARE — 31 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.

Who owns this facility

CMS files one row per role, so the 37 rows in the source record cover these 23 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

6 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in TX