Stonewall Living Center
931 N Broadway, Aspermont, TX 79502 · Government - Hospital district · 53 certified beds · (940) 989-3551 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- the CMS record shows $8,281 in federal fines (most recent 2025-06-19)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
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
| Overall quality measures | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
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.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 23.8% | 15.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.1% | 3.0% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 2.3% | 0.3% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.0% | 0.8% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 2.4% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 6.4% | 3.3% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 25.9% | 14.0% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 25.9% | 18.0% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.4% | 3.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 26.2% | 13.4% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 5.4% | 9.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 1.94 | 2.17 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.78 | 2.06 | 1.80 | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
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.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.04 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 2% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 0% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. 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.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | not reported — The data for this measure is missing or was not submitted. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 53 beds and averages 48.4 residents a day — about 91% occupied, or roughly 5 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 2.42 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 2.68 on weekdays — 10% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.38 to 0.23 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 56% 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 unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2025-06-19 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
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 that each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents. The facility failed to ensure CNA A and CNA B implemented the appropriate amount of assistance when they transferred Resident #1 themselves instead of using a mechanical lift, as was care planned. The Failure resulted in staff having to assist Resident #1 to the flor, and required her to be sent to the hospital where she was ultimately diagnosed with a fractured right femur. The noncompliance was identified as PNC. The IJ began on 06/14/25 and ended on 6/17/25. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began This failure could place residents at risk for physical harm, pain, mental anguish, emotional distress and serious injury. Findings include: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 6/19/25, revealed a [AGE] year-old-female who was originally admitted…
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.
- Potential for harm · E2026-02-12 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — patternHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to treat each resident with respect, dignity, and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promotes the maintenance or enhancement of their quality of life, recognizing each resident's individuality. The facility failed to protect and promote the rights of 13 of 16 residents (13 confidential residents) in that: The facility failed to ensure staff were not on their personal cell phones while providing Resident care. This could place residents at risk for diminished quality of life and loss of dignity and self-worth. Findings include: During an interview with confidential residents at an undisclosed date and time thirteen confidential residents stated the use of cell phones by nurses and CNAs while performing care made them feel ignored, not a priority, embarrassed, concerned the nurses and CNAs could make a mistake due to distraction by the cell phone conversation, and, most of all, their privacy was violated. During an interview thirteen confidential residents stated the use of cell phones by nurses and…
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.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-02-12 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
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 store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in the facility's 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for food safety. The facility failed to ensure food items in the refrigerator (x1), and freezers (x5), were labeled and stored in accordance with the professional standards for food service. These failures could place residents at risk for food-borne illness and cross contamination.Findings included: During kitchen tour observations on 2/10/26 that began at 11:08 a.m. and concluded at 11:59 a.m., revealed the following: Reach-in refrigerator revealed the following: What resembled pecan pie (undated, unlabeled), chocolate cake (undated, unlabeled), and [NAME] cake (no use by date) in different clear plastic bags. Reach-in freezer #1 revealed the following: What resembled sausages (undated), hamburger patties, hot dogs, double chocolate cookies, omelets, and french fries in different clear…
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.
- Potential for harm · E2025-06-19 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
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 interview and record review the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services, including procedures that assured the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals, to meet the needs of each resident for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #2) reviewed for medication. The facility failed to prevent Resident #2's Methocarbamol 500 MG medication from being accounted for, between April 2025-June 2025. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving prescribed medication for specified diagnosis. Findings include: Record review of Resident #2's face sheet, dated 6/19/25, revealed a [AGE] year-old-female who was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #2 had diagnoses which included dementia (memory loss) and pain in left knee. Record review of Resident #2's Comprehensive Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], revealed: Section C Brief Interview for Mental Status score revealed a score of 15, 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.
- Potential for harm · E2024-11-15 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — patternHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to provide information to resident's and their representatives on their rights related to filing grievances or concerns for 7 of 24 confidential residents. The facility failed to ensure 7 of 24 confidential residents were provided, through postings in prominent locations, the Grievance Procedure, access to the Grievance forms, information of who the facility's grievance official was and their contact information, how to file an anonymous grievance, and their right to obtain a written decision related to their grievance. This failure could place the residents at risk of unresolved grievances and decreased quality of life. Findings included: Interviews during Resident Council on, 11/14/2024 at 10:00 AM, attendees 7 of 24 confidential residents stated they did not know about the grievance process. They also stated they did not know where to obtain or submit a grievance form. They stated they did not know they could file a Grievance anonymously. They stated the Grievance procedure had never been discussed in…
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.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-11-15 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for dietary services., in that: 1. Dietary director failed to wash hands properly. 2. Cook A failed to wash hands properly and change gloves. These failures could place residents at risk for food contamination and foodborne illness. The findings included: During an observation on 11/13/24 at 11:55 AM observed the Dietary Director washed her hands; she used the used paper towel to turn off water. During an observation on 11/13/24 at 12:04 PM observed [NAME] A wash her hands and turned water off with bare hands. During an observation on 11/13/24 at 12:12 PM observed [NAME] A picked up a piece of paper off the floor with her gloved hand. [NAME] A threw away the paper and continued temping food on the steam table. No observation of glove changes or hand washing. During an observation on 11/13/24 at 12:21 PM observed [NAME] A carrying a pan to dishwash area with gloves on and…
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.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2023-10-12 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for dietary services, in that: 1) The facility failed to ensure foods were processed and puréed under sanitary conditions. 2) The facility failed to ensure dietary staff ensured food and non-food contact surfaces were clean. and 3) The facility failed to ensure foods were stored in a manner to prevent contamination. These failures could place residents at risk for food contamination and foodborne illness. The findings included : - The following observations were conducted during a kitchen tour beginning on 10/10/23 at 11:03 AM and concluded at 12:15 PM: In refrigerator #4 there were two unshielded lightbulbs. Freezer #3 had a heavy buildup of ice and frost on one of two sides. The lower shelf of the prep table near the stove was soiled with gummy grease . In the walk-in refrigerator, there was a box of garlic bread that was opened and uncovered which exposed it to…
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.
- Potential for harm · E2023-10-12 · tag F0805 — failed to prepare food in a form residents can eat — patternEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs.
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 each resident received, and the facility provided food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs for 5 of 5 residents (Residents #2, #19, #25, #26 and #142) reviewed for nutrition services; in that: The facility failed to provide food that was in a form to meet resident needs for Residents #2, #19, #25, #26 and #142 who had orders for puréed diets. This failure could place residents at risk of decreased food intake and choking. The findings include: Resident #2: Record review of the Order Summary Report dated 10/11/23 for female Resident #2 revealed that the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was [AGE] years old. The resident had diagnoses of abnormality of albumin (chemical imbalance related to protein), chronic kidney disease, unspecified, pain, unspecified, abnormal weight loss, unspecified, dementia, unspecified severity with other behavioral disturbance (cognitive impairment). Further record review…
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.
- Potential for harm · E2023-10-12 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure personnel stored linens so as to prevent the spread of infection in 2 of 4 baths (Hall 100 (large) and Hall 200 (large)), in that: The facility failed to store clean linens in a sanitary manner in 2 of 4 common baths (Hall 100 (large) and Hall 200 (large)). This failure could result in the spread of resident infections. The findings include: Observation on 10/10/23 at 4:54 PM revealed the large bath on hall 100 had large amounts of towels and wash cloths stored on open uncovered metal racks in the bath. There were approximately, 105 towels and 125 washcloths. On 10/10/23 at 5:04 PM o hall 200 large bath was observed. There was a large amount of towels and washcloths on open, uncovered metal racks in the bath. There were approximately 100 towels and 125 washcloths on the open rack that were unprotected. There was also a covered soiled linen cart present in the bath. On 10/11/23 at 10:10 AM Laundry staff A was observed stocking the hall 200 large bath with linens. On 10/11/23 at 10:12 AM an interview and…
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.
- Potential for harm · E2023-10-12 · tag F0914 — patternProvide bedrooms that don't allow residents to see each other when privacy is 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 resident rooms were designed or equipped to assure full visual privacy for each resident in 23 of 23 identified semi-private resident rooms reviewed (Rooms 101 - 116, 202, 204, 206, 208, 210, 212 and 214), in that: The facility failed to ensure semi-private resident rooms provided full visual privacy at the window area beds. This failure could place residents at risk of being exposed while receiving personal care. The findings include: Observation on 10/10/23 at 4:35 PM revealed room [ROOM NUMBER] had one privacy curtain that surrounded the bed at the door but there was no privacy curtain at the foot of the bed for the bed nearest the window. If an individual in the door bed went to their chest of drawers, they would be able to view the resident in the window area bed receiving care. Observations on 10/10/23 at 4:38 PM and 10/11/23 at 12:07 PM revealed room [ROOM NUMBER] had one privacy curtain that surrounded the bed at the door but…
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.
“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.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
$8,281 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $8,281 — penalty dated 2025-06-19
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
What families pay in TX
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Texas Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 676077. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-12, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →
Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →
Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.