Brodie Ranch Nursing and Rehabilitation Center
2101 Frate Barker Rd, Austin, TX 78748 · For profit - Corporation · 120 certified beds · (512) 444-5627 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609, F0610) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has citations for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0565, F0567)
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- inspectors recorded 2 serious findings 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
- a high number of inspection citations overall (29) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $51,477 in federal fines (most recent 2026-05-21)
- its payroll-based staffing 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 | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 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 improved from 1 to 3 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 | 25.6% | 15.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 3.5% | 3.0% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.3% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 0.8% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 1.6% | 2.4% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger 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 | 3.5% | 3.3% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 35.4% | 14.0% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 19.3% | 18.0% | 18.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.5% | 3.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 20.2% | 13.4% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 5.0% | 9.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.8% | 1.5% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.3% | 88.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 23.2% | 25.7% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 2.7% | 12.3% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.85 | 2.17 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.85 | 2.06 | 1.80 | better |
‡ 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.
43.5% 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 65 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 48.6% 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 35 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 0.68 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 91% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 8% 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.
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 | 43.5%CMS range 30.4–54.1 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.5%CMS range 7.3–14.3 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 48.6% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 60.0% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 57.1% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 98.4% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 92.9% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this 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 | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 1.6% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 8.2%CMS range 4.8–12.5 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.04 | 1.02 | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | CMS makes no comparison for this 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 120 beds and averages 114.0 residents a day — about 95% occupied, or roughly 6 beds typically open. It runs essentially full — expect a waiting list. 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 3.18 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.43 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.02 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 2.78 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.34 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.50 to 0.25 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 41% 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 more than at the previous inspection — worsening. 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.
29 citations, most serious first. The 14 most serious are shown; the remaining 15 are one tap away and print in full.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2026-03-31 · tag F0700 — isolatedTry 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to attempt to use appropriate alternatives prior to installing a side or bed rail or to ensure correct installation, use, and maintenance of bed rails for 1 of 25 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for bed rails. The facility failed to ensure an assessment was conducted for risk of entrapment and that the use of bed rails was added to the care plan for Resident #1prior to installation. Resident #1 became entrapped in her bed rails on [DATE] and found deceased with her head and neck between the rails and her mattress. The noncompliance was identified as Past Noncompliance. The IJ began on [DATE] and ended on [DATE]. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. This failure placed residents at risk of injury or death from entrapment in bed rails.Findings included: Review of the undated face sheet for Resident #1 reflected a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included fracture of base…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-08-08 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
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 residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choices for one (Resident #2) of four residents reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed ensure Resident #2 was assessed by a nurse after he was found on the ground in the dining room on [DATE]. He laid on the ground for over an hour and a half until family members arrived and assisted him to bed. There was no nursing documentation or incident report created by RN H. This failure resulted in an identification of an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) on [DATE] at 5:22 PM. While the IJ was removed on [DATE] at 3:55 PM, the facility remained at a level of no actual harm at a scope of isolated that is not immediate jeopardy due to the facility's need to evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems. These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving necessary…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2024-08-08 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents environment remained as free of accident hazards as is possible and ensure each resident received adequate supervision for one (Resident #1) of three residents reviewed for accidents and hazards. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 did not elope from the facility from an emergency exit door after CNA C utilized the exit code to the emergency door. LVN B observed the resident at a gas station after leaving work and did not stay with him until someone from the facility could assist. The temperature outside was a high of 95 degrees. He was later taken to the hospital where he tested positive for cocaine. This deficient practice placed residents at risk for unsafe elopements, falls, injuries, dehydration, and hospitalization. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) existed from 08/03/24 - 08/04/24. The IJ was determined to be at past noncompliance as the facility had implemented actions that corrected the deficient practice prior to the…
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.
- Actual harm · Gcited beforedisputed · IIDR2026-05-21 · 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 the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as was possible for 3 of 5 residents (Residents #11, #73 and 103) reviewed for accidents.1. The facility failed to prevent Resident #11 from sustaining a head injury requiring lacerations during an unwitnessed fall on 04/15/2026.2. The facility failed to conduct a smoking safety evaluation for Residents #73 and 103 prior to survey entrance on 05/19/2026.The facility failed to address smoking in the care plan for Resident #73.These failures placed residents at risk of smoking-related and fall-related injuries. 1.Review of Resident #11s face sheet, dated 05/21/26, revealed an [AGE] year-old female admitted [DATE]. She had diagnoses which included dementia (severe cognitive decline in memory, thinking, reasoning), Alzheimer's disease (progressive disease that destroys memory and other important mental function), unsteadiness on feet, lack of coordination, and heart…
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 before2026-05-21 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident was treated with respect and dignity and care in a manner and in an environment that promoted maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life, recognizing each resident's individuality for 4 of 4 residents (Resident #10, Resident #12, Resident #55, and Resident #84) reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to ensure that HS knocked on the doors of Resident #12, Resident #55, and Resident #84 when entering their rooms. The facility failed to ensure the privacy of Residents #12, #55, and #84 by not knocking before entering. The facility failed to ensure Resident #10 was dressed in his own clothing on 05/19/2026, 05/20/2026, and 05/21/2026. These failures placed residents at risk of poor self-esteem and feeling that their privacy was invaded. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident was treated with respect and dignity and care in a manner and in an…
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 · D2026-05-21 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
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 ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, are reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury, to the administrator of the facility and to other officials (including to the State Survey Agency and adult protective services where state law provides for jurisdiction in long-term care facilities) in accordance with State law through established procedures for one of eight residents (Resident #11) reviewed for ??.The facility failed to report to Health and Human Services an injury of unknown origin that occurred on 04/15/2026 when Resident #11 had an unwitnessed fall with injury 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 · D2026-05-21 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as 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 refer all residents with newly evident or possible serious mental disorder, intellectual disability, or a related condition for level II resident review upon a significant change in status assessment for 2 (Residents #113 and 87) of 6 residents reviewed for PASARR.The facility failed to perform a new PASRR assessment on Resident #113 when he was newly diagnosed with bipolar disorder.The facility failed to refer Resident #87 for a level II PASRR evaluation despite her qualifying diagnosis of paranoid personality disorder.This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving the services and support needed.Findings Included: Record review of Resident #113's face sheet, dated 05/21/26, revealed a [AGE] year-old male admitted [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic pain syndrome, need for assistance with personal care, vitamin D deficiency, cognitive communication deficit, major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder.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 · Dcited before2026-05-21 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop 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 a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident rights, that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment for 1 of 11 residents (Resident #73) reviewed for comprehensive care plans. The facility failed to ensure Resident #73 was care planned for smoking and for compromised oral/dental status. This failure placed residents at risk of accident injury and not having nutritional needs met. Record review of the undated face sheet for Resident #73 reflected a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included type two diabetes mellitus (a disease that affects how the body uses blood sugar), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a long-term lung condition that causes airflow blockage and breathing difficulties), emphysema (a long-term lung…
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 · D2026-05-21 · tag F0791 — failed to provide routine dental services — isolatedProvide or obtain dental services for each resident.
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 assist residents in obtaining routine dental care for 1 of 11 residents (Resident #73) reviewed for dental needs. The facility failed to offer Resident #73 dental services or refer him to be seen by a dentist. This failure placed residents at risk of pain and poor nutrition.Review of the undated face sheet for Resident #73 reflected a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included type two diabetes mellitus (a disease that affects how the body uses blood sugar), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a long-term lung condition that causes airflow blockage and breathing difficulties), emphysema (a long-term lung condition that causes airflow blockage and breathing difficulties), muscle weakness, abnormalities of gait and mobility, lack of coordination, cognitive communication deficit (problems with communication due to impaired cognition), dementia, schizoaffective disorder (combination of schizophrenia 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 · D2026-05-21 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide 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 maintain an infection and prevention control program that included, at a minimum, a system for preventing and controlling infections for 1of 3 residents (Resident #125) reviewed for incontinence care. The facility failed to ensure that :CNA C and CNA D handled personal care items with clean gloves while providing incontinent care for Resident #125. This failure could place the residents at the facility at risk of transmission of disease and infection.Findings included: Record review of Resident #125's face sheet, dated 05/20/26, reflected Resident #125 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #125 was a [AGE] year-old female, diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, muscle weakness, lack of coordination, cognitive communication deficit and major depressive disorder.Record review of Resident #125's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 15 indicating her cognition was intact. The MDS indicated that the…
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 · Dcited before2026-03-31 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop 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 for 1 of 25 (Resident #1) residents reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to ensure an assessment was conducted for risk of entrapment and that the use of bed rails was added to the care plan for Resident #1 prior to installation. She became entrapped in the bed rails on [DATE] and found deceased with her head and neck between the rails and her mattress. The noncompliance was identified as Past Noncompliance. The non-compliance began on [DATE] and ended on [DATE]. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. This failure placed residents at risk of injury or death from entrapment in bed rails.Findings included: Review of the undated face sheet for Resident #1 reflected a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included fracture of base of neck of left femur…
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 · D2025-11-18 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
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 reviews, the facility failed to immediately inform the resident; consult with the resident's physician; and notify, consistent with his or her authority, the resident representative(s) when there is an accident involving the resident which results in injury and has the potential for requiring physician intervention for 1 (Resident #1) of 4 residents reviewed for notification of changes. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's representative was notified after Resident #1 had an unwitnessed fall on 09/16/25. This failure could result in the family or representative not being aware of conditions that may require them to make medical decisions.Findings included: Review of Resident #1's face sheet printed 09/23/25 reflected an [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 09/17/25. His diagnoses included unspecified dementia, hypertension (high blood pressure) congestive heart failure, and prostate (a gland below the bladder in males) cancer with…
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 before2025-03-26 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life for 3 of 10 residents (Resident #31, Resident #71, and Resident #76) reviewed for rights. The facility failed to ensure CNA B knocked on Resident #31, Resident #71, and Resident #76's doors when going into the residents' rooms. The deficient practice could place residents at risk of feeling like their privacy was being invaded or the facility was not their home. Findings included: Review of Resident #31's Face Sheet dated 03/24/2025 revealed she was a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #31's diagnoses included heart disease, muscle wasting, shortness of breath, pain in joint, cognitive communication deficit (problems with communication), dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), heart failure, morbid (severe) obesity, dependency 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.
- Potential for harm · E2025-03-26 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
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 prepare foods by methods that conserve nutritive value, flavor, and appearance in the facility's only kitchen for 20 of 21 residents (Resident #42, Resident #47, Resident #63, Resident #19, Resident #361, and confidential group interview (15 of 16 residents)). The [NAME] prepared food as early as 2 hours and 45 minutes prior to meal service as observed on 03/24/2025 at 9:15 a.m. and 03/25/2025 at 9:35 a.m. The [NAME] held food in shallow pans uncovered on top of the stove for more than 2 hours and 45 minutes prior to meal service. Regular test tray rendered a low temperature and bland flavor. Pureed test tray rendered a low temperature and bland flavor. Food lacked seasoning and was unacceptable to residents. Food was prepared and held at low temperatures for hours prior to meal service. Puree food was served to residents with visible lumps and required chewing. Food was served at unpreferable and unappetizing temperature for the residents. Facility was aware of the resident's complaints about food being…
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.
Show the remaining 15 citations
- Potential for harm · D2025-03-26 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that drugs and biologicals used in the facility were stored properly for 1 (Hall 200-MA Cart) of 7 Medication carts reviewed for drug storage. The facility failed to ensure one medication cart (Hall 200-MA Cart) was locked and that medications were securely stored. This failure could place residents at risk to obtain and take medications not prescribed for them which could result in resident's harm due to adverse medication reactions. Findings include: Observation on 03/26/25 at 11:15 AM revealed the medication cart, assigned to MA-A located on 200 hall, was unattended and unlocked for approximately 10 minutes, and medications were accessible to residents. The cart was unlocked, and multiple staff walked down the hall and past the unlocked medication cart but failed to lock the cart. In an interview on 3/26/25 at 11:20 AM, MA-A stated, the policy was to keep the medication cart locked 24 hours a day/7 day a week and to never leave it unattended unlocked. He stated it was important to keep the cart…
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 · D2024-06-05 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
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 reviews, the facility failed to ensure a verbal abuse alleged violation was thoroughly investigated with Resident #1 and Resident #2. The facility failed to investigate an allegation made by Resident #1 during a separate facility reported incident. The facility failed to investigate Resident #1's allegation of verbal abuse, in a facility reported incident that involved Resident #1 and another resident. Resident #1 made an allegation of verbal abuse against Resident #2. This failure could place residents at risk to prevent further abuse, neglect, and exploitation; and it potentially prevents the facility to take corrective actions to prevent abuse, neglect, and exploitation. Findings included: Review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 05/31/2024, revealed an [AGE] year-old-female with an initial admission date of 08/11/2021 and an admission date of 12/22/2022, with diagnoses of cellulitis (bacterial skin infection) of right lower limb, diabetes, muscle wasting, cognitive…
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 · D2024-05-22 · tag F0660 — isolatedPlan the resident's discharge to meet the resident's goals and 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 develop and implement an effective discharge planning process that focused on the resident's discharge goals and included regular re-evaluation of residents to identify changes that require modification of the discharge plan and to reflect these changes in the discharge plan for one of one resident (Resident #1) reviewed for discharge planning. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 had a discharge plan in place. This failure placed residents at risk of not having a plan in place to address residents post discharge needs. Findings included: Review of the undated face sheet for Resident #1 reflected a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included hemiplegia and hemiparesis (paralysis on one side of the body), cognitive communication deficit (problems with communication caused by cognitive impairment), aphasia following cerebral infarction (loss of speech following a stroke that cause death of brain…
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 before2024-03-29 · tag F0577 — widespreadAllow residents to easily view the nursing home's survey results and communicate with advocate agencies.
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 have the results of the most recent survey of the facility posted in a place readily available to residents, family members and legal representatives for 1 of 1 survey results books. The facility failed to ensure a binder placed on a table at the entrance of the facility and titled Survey Results contained the results of the most recent full recertification survey. This failure placed residents at risk of not having all the information necessary to make decisions about living at the facility. Findings included: Observation on 03/29/24 at 12:50 PM revealed a white three-ring binder on a console table just inside the entrance doors to the facility. The binder had Survey Results printed on the front. Within the binder were results of State Agency surveys dating back to 2021, but the results from the most recent full recertification survey, held from 02/06/24 to 02/08/24, were not present anywhere in the binder. The binder did contain a Notice of Accepted Plan of Correction Form referencing the full…
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 · E2024-02-08 · tag F0565 — failed to support the resident council — patternHonor the resident's right to organize and participate in resident/family groups in the facility.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and observation, the facility failed to provide a private space for residents' monthly council meetings and the confidential resident group meeting during survey for 9 of 9 confidential residents reviewed for resident council. The facility did not provide a private space for resident council meetings. This failure could place residents, who attended resident council meetings, at risk of not being able to exercise their rights of being able to voice their grievances in a private space without uninvited staff being present. Findings Included: Observation and interview on 02/07/24 at 03:15 PM, during a confidential resident group meeting held in the dining room with 9 residents revealed at various times during the resident group meeting 2 dietary staff entered the dining room while the residents were answering questions and voicing their opinions/concerns. There were signs on the doors entering the dining room that reflected do not enter resident group in progress. 1 dietary staff member was observed moving metal tray carts in the dining room, and there were loud…
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 · E2024-02-08 · tag F0576 — patternEnsure residents have reasonable access to and privacy in their use of communication methods.
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 all residents had a private place for telephone communications without being overheard. The facility failed to ensure there was an area for residents to have private telephone communications. This failure could place residents at risk to lose their ability to communicate privately on the telephone, and could result in a decline in their psychosocial well-being and quality of life. Findings included: Observation on 02/07/2024 at 11:37 AM revealed a small table with a land line telephone, a sign that reflected, Resident Phone and a chair was located next to the nurse's station. In an interview on 02/07/2024 at 11:40 the Acting ADM stated the residents needed a private place to use a phone. He further stated when he was the ADM at the facility they had a portable phone the residents could take to a private area, and he was unsure when the current phone was set up. In a confidential interview during resident council on 0/2/07/2024 at 3:00 PM three residents stated there was not enough privacy for using…
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 · E2024-02-08 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — patternKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to send and promptly receive mail, and to receive letters, packages, and other materials delivered to the facility for the resident through the means other than a postal service for 9 of 9 confidential residents reviewed for weekend mail delivery in that: The facility failed to ensure residents received their mail on the weekend. These failures could place residents at risk for not receiving mail in a timely manner and could result in a decline in residents' psychosocial well-being and quality of life. Findings included: During a confidential group interview on 02/07/24 at 03:00 PM 9 of 9 residents stated mail was not distributed on Saturdays. They stated mail did not get delivered until Monday or even picked up until Monday. The residents stated they had spoken to the Activities Director about this, and the residents were told it would be delivered by the weekend receptionist. In an interview on 02/08/2024 at 11:00 AM the Social Worker stated she was unsure who was responsible for…
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 · E2024-02-08 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — patternProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care 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 that a resident who needed respiratory care was provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice for 3 of 3 residents (Residents #73, #129 and #131) reviewed for oxygen therapy. 1. Resident #73's was receiving oxygen therapy and her oxygen humidifier water bottle was empty. 2. Resident #129 was receiving continuous oxygen therapy and did not have a filter on her oxygen concentrator. 3. Resident #131 had a C-Pap mask lying uncovered on her bedside table. These failures could place residents at risk for ineffective oxygen therapies and infection. Findings included : 1. Record review of Resident #73's undated Face Sheet reflected she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (group of diseases that cause airflow blockage and breathing related problems), muscle wasting and atrophy (decrease in size and strength of muscles), unsteadiness 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.
- Potential for harm · E2024-02-08 · 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 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) Dietary staff failed to label and date all food items located in the dry storage. 2) Dietary staff failed to dispose of expired foods items located in the reach-in refrigerator. 3) Dietary staff failed to effectively reseal, label and date items in the walk-in refrigerator. 4) Dietary staff failed to effectively reseal, label and date items in the walk-in freezer. 5) Dietary staff failed to wear hairnets while working in the kitchen. These failures could place residents at risk for food contamination and foodborne illness. The findings include: During the initial tour of the kitchen on 02/06/2024 at 09:06 AM the following was observed: 1. The reach in refrigerator contained a plastic container with a strawberry glaze labeled with a prepared date of 01/25/24 and a shelf-life use by date of 01/31/24. 2. The reach in refrigerator contained a…
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 · D2024-02-08 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each resident.
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 residents received services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of each resident's needs for 2 of 20 residents (Residents #73 and #126) reviewed for call lights. Residents #73 and #126 were observed in their room with their call lights not in reach. This failure could affect residents who needed assistance with activities of daily living and could result in needs not being met. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #73's undated Face Sheet reflected she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (group of diseases that cause airflow blockage and breathing related problems), muscle wasting and atrophy (decrease in size and strength of muscles), unsteadiness on feet, and dependence on supplemental oxygen. Record review of Resident #73's MDS Resident Assessment and Care Screening dated 1/30/2024 reflected she had a BIMS score of 15 indicating…
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 · D2024-02-08 · tag F0567 — failed to protect residents' money held by the home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to manage his or her financial affairs.
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 ensure that the resident has a right to manage his or her financial affairs The facility failed to ensure Resident #22 was given a check that was sent to her. After Resident #22 was informed, a check was sent to her, the facility failed to allow her to manage her own personal funds. This deficient practice could affect residents and could result in the violation of the rights of residents who choose to manage their own funds and who receive money sent to them by not allowing them to manage their own funds therefore violating their rights and not having preferences honored. Findings Included : Review of Resident #22's face sheet dated 02/06/2024 revealed she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnosis including unspecified dementia and acute respiratory failure with hypoxia (a state in which oxygen is not available in sufficient amounts at the tissue level to maintain adequate equilibrium . Review of Resident #22's…
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 · D2024-02-08 · tag F0575 — isolatedPost a list of names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all pertinent State agencies and advocacy groups and a statement that the resident may file a complaint with the State Survey Agency.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to post, in a form and manner accessible to the residents and resident representatives, the required information for the public and the entire facility for the required contact information (Resident Rights) to include: *HHSC phone number *Contact information for the Ombudsman. *A statement that the resident may file a complaint with the State Survey Agency concerning any suspected violation of state or federal regulation, including but not limited to reside abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation of property in the facility, and non-compliance with the advances directives requirements (42 CFR part 489 subpart I) requests for information regarding returning to the community. This failure affected residents and resident representatives by placing them at risk of being unaware of who to contact should they require advocacy services or investigations. Findings included: Observation on 02/07/2024 at 10:30 AM during a walking tour of the facility with the previous ADM revealed there was not a required contact information…
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 · D2024-02-08 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolatedProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
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 the facility failed to provide the necessary services to maintain grooming and personal care for 1 of 20 residents (#134) reviewed for ADL care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #134 received his bath three times a week as per his shower schedule. These failures could place residents at risk of skin breakdown, infection, and loss of self-esteem. Findings included: Record review of the undated Face Sheet for Resident #134 reflected he was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of Pressure Ulcer sacral (lower back and spine) regions, Stage 4 (the largest and deepest of all pressure ulcers. Muscles bones and or tendons may be visible at the bottom of the ulcer) and acquired absence of left leg above knee amputation. Record review of a Comprehensive MDS dated [DATE] for Resident #134 reflected he had a BIMS score of 15 indicating intact cognitive status. His functional abilities reflected…
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 · Dcited before2024-02-08 · 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 each resident received adequate supervision and assistance to prevent accidents for one (Resident #28) of eight residents reviewed, in that: The facility failed to follow Resident #28's smoking evaluation requiring 1:1 supervision while she smoked and failed to don her smoking apron in a safe manner which resulted in the resident obtaining a burn to her chest and a subsequent scar. This failure could place residents who smoke at risk for neglect, harm, pain, and injuries. Findings included: Review of the updated face sheet for Resident #28 reflected a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of anoxic brain damage (an oxygen deficient condition), muscle wasting and atrophy (decrease in size or wasting away of a body part or tissue) multiple sites, reduced mobility, unspecified lack of coordination, aphasia (loss of ability to understand or express speech, caused by brain damage) following nontraumatic…
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.
- No harm found · Ccited before2024-02-08 · tag F0577 — widespreadAllow residents to easily view the nursing home's survey results and communicate with advocate agencies.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, and interview, and record review the facility failed to have the results of the most recent survey of the facility posted in a place readily available to residents, family members and legal representatives for 1 of 1 survey results books. The facility failed to post the facility's most recent inspection reports. This failure could affect the residents who resided in the facility. Findings included: Observation on 02/07/2024 at 11:00 AM revealed the survey book was located in the front lobby and was not updated past 12/22/2024 . The facility had two citations written on 05/08/2024 that were not included in the survey book as reflected in a federal database of facility citations. In an interview on 02/07/2024 at 11:07 AM the Acting ADM stated the survey book was not up to date and he was unsure what staff that task was delegated to. Record review of an undated Policy/Procedure - Nursing Administration reflected the resident has the right to examine the results of the Nursing Center's most recent survey conducted by representative of the Department of Health 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.
“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.
“Disputed” is CMS’s own flag, not our reading: the CMS deficiency file records whether the home has formally contested a citation, and we reproduce that. IDR is Informal Dispute Resolution, run by the state survey agency that wrote the citation; IIDR is Independent Informal Dispute Resolution, a separate process before an outside entity, available when CMS has proposed a civil money penalty. They are different processes and we mark them differently. Two things to hold at once. A disputed citation is still a citation — it was written by a surveyor, it stands on the record unless and until it is changed, and we neither hide it nor discount it. And we cannot tell you how the dispute came out: CMS publishes that a citation is under dispute, not the outcome, so a tag marked here may since have been upheld, reduced, or deleted, and an unmarked tag may have been disputed and resolved before this file was cut. Ask the home what it disputed and why — it is entitled to tell you, and the answer is often the most informative thing on this page.
- 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
$51,477 in federal fines across 3 penalties.
- $22,920 — penalty dated 2026-05-21
- $17,796 — penalty dated 2026-03-31
- $10,761 — penalty dated 2024-08-08
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.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to THE ENSIGN GROUP — 342 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 →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3 of 5 | 3.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 3 of 5 | 2.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 2.7 | -0.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.4 | -0.4 vs chain |
The other 341 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.2★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 341; lowest-rated first.
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
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALCALA, CHRISTOPHER | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2022 |
| KROL, MICHAEL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2022 |
| BURNAM, SOON | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/18/2022 |
| HOOPER, GRADY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 12/01/2015 |
| KEETCH, CHAD | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 03/01/2011 |
| MOCKINGBIRD HEALTHCARE, INC. | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2022 |
| ENSIGN SERVICES INC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/18/2022 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 12 rows in the source record cover these 7 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.
2 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.
This home reported $664K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. 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, FY2023). 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
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 676267. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-05-21, 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.