Onion Creek Nursing and Rehabilitation Center
1700 Onion Creek Pkwy, Austin, TX 78748 · For profit - Corporation · 125 certified beds · (512) 291-4900 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 2 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (27) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $51,337 in federal fines (most recent 2025-04-05)
- its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- its last standard health inspection was over 2 years ago — the star rating may not reflect current conditions
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 | 2 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
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 fell from 3 to 1 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 | 19.2% | 15.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.5% | 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 | 0.3% | 0.8% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 3.3% | 2.4% | 6.5% | worse 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 | 2.9% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 14.7% | 14.0% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 9.9% | 18.0% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.0% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.9% | 3.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 20.0% | 13.4% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 8.2% | 9.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.8% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 59.0% | 88.0% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 24.9% | 25.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 9.3% | 12.3% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.53 | 2.17 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.88 | 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.
49.7% 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 76 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 53.9% 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 52 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 1.12 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 98% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 17% 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 | 49.7%CMS range 38.1–61.1 | 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 | 10.6%CMS range 6.7–14.8 | 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 | 53.9% | 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 | 51.9% | 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 | 48.1% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 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 | 94.7% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this 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 | 3.7% | 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 | 6.8%CMS range 4.2–11.5 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.92 | 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 125 beds and averages 109.5 residents a day — about 88% occupied, or roughly 16 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.
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 3.09 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.22 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.84 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 2.76 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.22 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.27 to 0.08 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 50% 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.
This trend is not current. The most recent of these two inspections was over 2 years ago; the arrow describes what inspectors found then, not what the home is like now.
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.
27 citations, most serious first. The 13 most serious are shown; the remaining 14 are one tap away and print in full.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2025-04-05 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — patternProvide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
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 care, consistent with professional standards of practice, to prevent pressure ulcers and does not develop pressure ulcers unless the individual's clinical condition demonstrates that they were unavoidable for 1 of 14 residents at risk of pressure ulcers. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 had interventions in place to prevent an Unstageable Pressure ulcer in the thoracic spine (thoracic spine is the middle section of your spine. It starts at the base of your neck and ends at the bottom of your ribs). From 02/28/2025 to 03/04/2025 Resident #1 did not receive wound care treatment or interventions to prevent the abrasion found at admission from developing into an Unstageable Pressure ulcer in the thoracic spine. An IJ was identified on 04/03/2025. The IJ Template was provided to the facility on [DATE] at 05:22 p.m. While the IJ was removed on 04/05/2025, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of…
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 · J2025-02-19 · 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 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 leave the facility with nursing staff being aware as she was found approximately 2.5 hours later and approximately 4.2 miles away (at a store off a major highway - 65 MPH) after being contacted by an outside party 02/16/25. The temperature was approximately 58 degrees. This failure resulted in an identification of an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) on 02/18/25 at 2:16 PM and an IJ template was given. While the IJ was removed on 02/19/25 at 4:42 PM, the facility remained out of compliance at a level of no actual harm at a scope of isolated that was not immediate jeopardy due to the facility's need to evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems. This failure placed residents at…
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 · H2024-10-02 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — patternProvide 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 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 #1) of three residents reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed to implement orders from the hospital for blood glucose monitoring four times a day and administering of a sliding scale insulin four times a day upon Resident #1's admission on [DATE]. Orders were not implemented until 10/01/24 and during that timeframe Resident #1 was worried about his diabetes, felt sick to his stomach, funny, different, and really off. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving necessary medical care, harm, and hospitalization. Findings included: Review of Resident #1's undated face sheet reflected a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the hospital on [DATE] with diagnoses including respiratory failure, type II diabetes, urinary tract infection,…
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 before2026-06-05 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
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, record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure residents remained free of any significant errors for 1 of 3 residents (Resident # 1) reviewed for medication error. The facility failed to ensure resident #1 received physician ordered medication Apixaban 2.5 mg and Insulin Glargine 16 units on May 31,2026 as prescribed. This failure could place residents at risk of complications such as blood clots or high blood sugars levels. Observation of pyxis system (automated medication cabinet that stores frequently used medications) on 6/5/2026 at 09:00 AM reflected the medication Apixaban 2.5 mg (medication used to decrease the risk of blood clot formation) was available for administration to the resident with 9 tablets available, there was no insulin glargine (medication used to lower blood sugar) available in the pyxis. Record review of Resident #1's face sheet reflected an admission date of 1/17/2026, an [AGE] year-old female with diagnoses that included type 2 diabetes mellitus 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 · D2026-01-28 · 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 review, the facility failed to immediately inform the resident and the resident representative(s) when there is a a need to alter treatment significantly for one (Resident #1) of five residents reviewed for change in condition. The facility failed to ensure that Resident #1's RP was notified when Resident #1's MD discontinued his Amoxicillin-Potassium Clavulanate, Alprazolam, Divalproex Sodium, Mirtazapine, Furosemide, Eplerenone, Glipizide and Potassium Chloride, on 01/13/2026. This failure could result in decreased continuity of care, and a delay in the treatment and services needed.Findings included: Review of Resident #1's face sheet reflected an [AGE] year-old male admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of metabolic encephalopathy (broad term for brain dysfunction caused by illness, chemical imbalances or toxins), type 2 diabetes mellitus (chronic condition that the body cannot effectively use insulin to maintain blood sugar levels), altered mental status (change in a person'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 · Ecited before2025-11-05 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — patternEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
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 records review the facility failed to ensure Residents were free of any significant medication error for one (Resident #1) of three Residents review for medication.The facility failed to follow physician's orders for Resident #1 when she was discharged from the hospital on [DATE]. Resident #1's order for Divalproex Sodium (Depakote) [A type of drug that is used to prevent or treat seizures or convulsions by controlling abnormal electrical. It can also be used as mood stabilizer) for this with intervention to give medications as ordered.] Oral Tablet Delayed Release 250 MG (Divalproex Sodium) Give 1 tablet BID was never carried out and Resident #1 did not receive six doses of the medication. This deficient practice placed residents at risk of not receiving therapeutic dose of medication and hospitalization.Findings included: Review of Resident #1's face sheet printed 11/05/2025 reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with the following dx:…
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 before2025-07-03 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident that included measurable objectives and timetables to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs for one (Resident #1) of five residents reviewed for care plans, in that: The facility failed to care plan Resident #1's history of refusal of care and medication from 01/02/2025 to present. This failure placed residents at risk of not receiving goals and interventions for the residents' individual needs for person-centered care. Findings included: Review of Resident #1's face sheet dated 06/30/25 reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including acute on chronic combined systolic (congestive) and diastolic (congestive) heart failure (a patient has a pre-existing chronic heart failure condition that suddenly worsens due to both systolic (the pressure in your arteries when…
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 · D2025-07-03 · tag F0685 — isolatedAssist a resident in gaining access to vision and hearing services.
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 residents received proper treatment to maintain vision abilities by not assisting the resident in making appointments for 1 of 20 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for vision. The facility failed to address Resident #1's glasses and vision issues, first requested by Resident #1's family via email in March of 2025. Resident #1 did not corrective lenses to assist her vision. This deficient practice could affect residents who need vision and hearing services and could result in avoidable vision loss and a decreased quality of life. Findings included: Review of Resident #1's face sheet dated 06/30/25 reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including acute on chronic combined systolic (congestive) and diastolic (congestive) heart failure (a patient has a pre-existing chronic heart failure condition that suddenly worsens due to both systolic (the pressure in your arteries…
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 · D2025-02-19 · 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 all alleged violations involving abuse or neglect were reported immediately or no later than 24 hours for one (Resident #1) of three residents reviewed for abuse and neglect. The facility failed to report to the State Agency an incident when Resident #1 left the facility without nursing staff being aware on 02/16/25. This failure could place residents at risk of abuse or and neglect. Findings included: Review of Resident #1's undated face sheet reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including psychotic disorder with delusions, generalized anxiety disorder, dementia, unsteadiness on feet, and difficulty in walking. She was not her own RP. Review of Resident #1's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 11/08/24, reflected a BIMS score of 10, indicating a moderate cognitive impairment. Section E (Behavior) reflected she had not exhibited behaviors of wandering. Section GG (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 · E2024-07-01 · 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 two (Resident #1 and Resident #2) of four residents reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to administer scheduled time-sensitive medications to Residents #1 and #2 until 2.5 - 6 hours after the ordered scheduled time from 06/24/24 - 06/27/24. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of not receiving the intended therapeutic benefit of the medications and supplements, worsening or exacerbation of chronic medical conditions, and hospitalization. Findings included : Review of Resident #1's undated face sheet reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including type II diabetes, depression , asthma (A lung disorder characterized by narrowing of the airways) with exacerbation, 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 before2024-07-01 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — patternEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
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 residents were free of any significant medication errors for two (Resident #1 and Resident #2) of four residents reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to administer scheduled time-sensitive medications to Residents #1 and #2 until 2.5 - 6 hours after the ordered scheduled time from 06/24/24 - 06/27/24. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of not receiving the intended therapeutic benefit of the medications and supplements, worsening or exacerbation of chronic medical conditions, and hospitalization. Findings included : Review of Resident #1's undated face sheet reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including type II diabetes, depression , asthma (A lung disorder characterized by narrowing of the airways) with exacerbation, and fracture of left femur (thigh bone). Review of Resident #1's admission MDS assessment, dated 05/25/24 , reflected a BIMS of 14,…
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 before2024-02-29 · 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 foods safety for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for food safety and sanitation. The facility failed to ensure all food items were labeled and dated. The facility failed to ensure dishes were sanitized at the correct concentration of sanitizer (50 ppm). The facility failed to ensure employee's personal food items were stored separately from resident food items. These failures placed residents at risk of foodborne illness. Findings included: An observation of the walk-in refrigerator on 2/27/2024 at 9:14 a.m. revealed two packages of ground unidentifiable without a label or date. Both items were covered with a layer of frost. An observation of the walk-in refrigerator on 2/27/2024 at 9:16 a.m. revealed a plastic storage container labeled ham and cheese dated 2/12/2024 but the contents were five individually wrapped unidentifiable substances. An observation of the walk-in refrigerator on 2/27/2024 at 9:20 a.m. revealed two plastic…
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 · E2024-02-29 · 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 observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure personal privacy for residents during care by two (Resident #298, Resident #73) of seven resident reviewed for privacy. The facility failed to ensure that MDS B, LVN C, CNA G and CNA H, CNA J knocked/announced themselves before entering Resident #298 and #73's rooms. This failure puts all residents at risk of not having their privacy respected by staff. The findings were: Observation of CNA H at 02/27/2024 at 9:00am walking in resident 73's room without knocking or announcing herself when offering the resident water. Interview with Resident #73 on 02/27/2024 at 10:20am revealed that staff treat him with respect most of the time. He did not answer questions about staff knocking on door. Interview with Resident #298 on 02/27/2024 at 10:25am revealed that staff treat her with respect most of the time. She stated she can not hear if someone knocks or not. Observation LVN C on 02/27/2024 at 3:00pm revealed LVN C walking into several resident 298's room without knocking or announcing himself to the resident.…
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 14 citations
- Potential for harm · E2024-02-29 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — patternProvide 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 failed to ensure all residents who were unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain good grooming and person hygiene for 4 of 8 (Resident #4, Resident #8, Resident #70 and Resident #83) residents reviewed for ADLs. The facility failed to ensure Resident #70's fingernails were trimmed. The facility failed to ensure Resident #8's fingernails were trimmed and cleaned. The facility failed to ensure Resident #83's toenails were trimmed. The facility failed to ensure Resident #4 received a facial shave. Findings included: 1. A record review of Resident #70's face sheet dated 2/29/2024 reflected a [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of progressive supranuclear ophthalmoplegia (neurodegenerative disorder), muscle wasting and atrophy (muscle loss), need for assistance with personal care and psychotic disorder with delusions due to known physiological condition (hallucinations or delusions…
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 · D2024-02-29 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record review the facility failed to have an assessment that accurately reflected the status for 2 of 3 Residents (Resident #96 and Resident #97) reviewed for assessment accuracy in that: 1. Resident #96's discharge MDS dated [DATE] reflected she was discharged to Short Term General Hospital (acute hospital) when she was discharged home. 2. Resident #97's discharge MDS dated [DATE] reflected he was discharged home when he was discharged to Short Term General Hospital (acute hospital). This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving the proper care and services due to inaccurate records. Findings include: 1. Record review of Resident #96's Face Sheet dated 02/29/24 revealed a [AGE] year-old woman admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of muscle wasting and atrophy (decrease in the size of a tissue or organ due to cellular shrinkage)- not elsewhere classified- multiple sites, chronic kidney disease stage 3A (condition in which the kidneys are damaged and cannot…
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 · D2024-02-29 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — isolatedProvide activities to meet all resident's 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 all residents were provided, based on the preferences of each resident, an ongoing program to support residents in their choice of activities, both facility-sponsored group and individual activities, designed to meet the interests and support the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident for 1 of 8 (Resident #89) residents reviewed for activities. The facility failed to provide regular, individualized activities to Resident #89. This failure placed residents at risk of decreased physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Findings included: A record review of Resident #89's face sheet dated 2/29/2024 reflected a [AGE] year-old male admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of dementia with agitation and behavioral disturbance, muscle wasting and atrophy (muscle loss), lack of coordination, and adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood (maladaptive response to a psychosocial stressor). A 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 · D2024-02-29 · tag F0808 — failed to follow doctor-ordered diets — isolatedEnsure therapeutic diets are prescribed by the attending physician and may be delegated to a registered or licensed dietitian, to the extent allowed by State law.
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 provide the physician prescribed therapeutic diet to 1 of 4 residents (Resident #298) reviewed for therapeutic diets, in that: Resident #2 did not receive no salt added diet as ordered. This failure affected one resident and placed her at risk for using the salt and causing further health issues. Findings included: Resident #298 Record review of Resident #298's face-sheet revealed a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included: Atrial fibrillation, Severe Protein-Calorie Malnutrition, Chronic Diastolic (Congestive) heart Failure, Morbid obesity due to excessive calories, Long term(current) use of anticoagulants, Generalized Edema, Reflux disease, High Blood Pressure, Dysphagia Oral Phase Record review of Resident #298's Dietary Orders revealed Resident 298 is on a regular diet: regular texture, Thin Liquids consistency NO added salt. Interview with Resident 298's POA on 02/27/2024 at 2:58pm revealed…
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 before2022-12-02 · 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 for 2 of 2 nourishment refrigerators (MC Refrigerator and Refrigerator B) reviewed for food handling sanitation. 1. The facility failed to ensure temperature logs were completed and maintained. 2. The facility failed to ensure expired milk was removed from the reach-in nourishment refrigerators. 3. The facility failed to ensure foods in the memory care unit refrigerator were labeled and dated. These failures could place residents at risk for cross-contamination and foodborne illnesses. The findings include: Observation on 11/30/22 at 10:54 AM revealed The MC Refrigerator dedicated to resident use within the memory care unit without a corresponding temperature log. There were 14 units of 2% dairy milk found within the memory care refrigerator which indicated dates of expiration ranging between 11/05/2022 and 11/29/2022. There were 7 plastic food containers without an indicated of resident ownership,…
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 · E2022-12-02 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — patternEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
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 a medication error rate was not 5% or greater. The facility had a medication error rate of 18%, based on 5 errors out of 27 opportunities, which involved 1 of 5 residents (Resident #56) and 1 of 4 staff (LVN B) reviewed for medication administration. The facility failed to ensure LVN B administered medications according to the physician's orders and per professional standards which resulted in an 18% medication administration error rate. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of not receiving therapeutic effects of their medications and possible adverse reactions. The findings are: Record review of Resident #56's face sheet, dated 12/1/22 revealed a [AGE] year old female admitted on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included cerebral palsy (physical disability that affects movement and posture), seizures, disorders of psychological development, adult failure to thrive (a syndrome of weight loss,…
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 · D2022-12-02 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — isolatedHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
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 resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive for 2 of 18 residents (Residents #13 and #53) reviewed for advance directives. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #13's OOH-DNR had the attending physician's medical license number documented on the form. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #34's OOH-DNR form included the physician's license number, date signed, and printed name. These deficient practices could place residents at-risk of having their end of life wishes dishonored and having CPR performed against their wishes. The findings were: 1. Record review of Resident #13's face sheet, dated [DATE], revealed a [AGE] year old female admitted on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included Alzheimer's disease (a brain disorder that slowly destroys memory and thinking skills, 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 · D2022-12-02 · 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 establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable disease and infections for 2 of 4 staff (CNA C and CNA D) and 1 of 2 residents (Resident #53) reviewed for infection control. 1. The facility to ensure CNA C, while assisting CNA D with perineal/incontinent care to Resident #53, did not place the clear plastic bag with incontinent supplies on the floor. 2. The facility failed to ensure CNA D changed gloves when going from dirty to clean sites when providing perineal/incontinent care to Resident #53. These deficient practices could place residents at risk for cross contamination and/or spread of infection. The findings were: Record review of Resident #53's face sheet, dated 12/2/22 revealed a [AGE] year old female admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included acute kidney failure (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 · Ecited before2021-09-10 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop 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 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 set forth at §483.10(c)(2) and §483.10(c)(3), that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment. The comprehensive care plan must describe the following The services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being as required for 3 of 7 ( #4, #13, #26) reviewed for PASSAR care plans in that: 1. Resident #4's PASSAR care plan was not developed. 2. Resident #13's PASSAR care plan was not developed. 3. Resident #26's PASSAR care plan was not developed. This could affect all residents with care plans and could result in residents not provided care they need. The Findings were: 1. Record review of Resident #4's face sheet dated 9/10/2021…
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 · E2021-09-10 · tag F0756 — failed to review each resident's drug regimen — patternEnsure a licensed pharmacist perform a monthly drug regimen review, including the medical chart, following irregularity reporting guidelines in developed policies and procedures.
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 all irregularities identified by the licensed pharmacist were reviewed and what, if any, action was taken to address it by the attending physician for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #86) reviewed for unnecessary medications, in that: The facility failed to ensure Resident #86's Pharmacist consultant recommendation reviews for, the necessity of continued use of as needed PRN Ativan (anti-anxiety medication), provide a stop date for the medication, and ensured a physician responded to the recommendations for 4 months. This deficient practice could affect residents who received monthly pharmacy reviews at risk of receiving unnecessary medications and dosages. Findings included: Record review of Resident #86's face sheet, dated 9/10/21 revealed he was admitted to the facility 6/7/2018 and readmitted [DATE] with diagnoses which included generalized anxiety disorder. Record review of Resident #86's MDS, a Significant Change assessment dated [DATE],…
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 · E2021-09-10 · tag F0758 — failed to limit and justify psychotropic drugs — patternImplement gradual dose reductions(GDR) and non-pharmacological interventions, unless contraindicated, prior to initiating or instead of continuing psychotropic medication; and PRN orders for psychotropic medications are only used when the medication is necessary and PRN use is limited.
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 PRN orders for psychotropic drugs were limited to 14 days for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #86) reviewed for psychotropic drugs, in that: Resident #86 had a PRN order for Ativan (an anti-anxiety medication) for more than 14 days without physician documentation re-evaluating the medication to continue its use and did not have a stop date for 4 months. This deficient practice could place residents who received psychotropic medications at risk of adverse drug consequences, receiving unnecessary medications, and decline in their physical and psychosocial well-being. Findings included: Record review of Resident #86's face sheet, dated 9/10/21 revealed he was admitted to the facility 6/7/2018 and readmitted [DATE] with diagnoses which included generalized anxiety disorder. Record review of Resident #86's MDS, a Significant Change assessment dated [DATE], revealed under Section N Medications is was coded the resident did not receive any…
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 · E2021-09-10 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to store all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments under proper temperature controls, and permit only authorized personnel to have access to the keys, for 2 of 9 medication carts reviewed and 1 of 2 residents (Resident #34) reviewed for drugs and biologicals in locked compartments, in that: 1. The medication cart on hall 100 was left unattended, unlocked, and out of sight from Medication Aide D (MA D). 2. The medication cart on hall 300 was left unattended and unlocked, and out of site from Licensed Vocational Nurse E (LVN E). 3. Resident #34 had non prescribed, unsecured, medications at the bedside. This deficient practice could place residents at risk for loss of control of prescribed medications. The findings included: 1 During an observation guided tour by the DON of the facility on 9/7/2021 at 10:14 am, a medication cart on 100-hall was observed unattended and unlocked and out of sight from MA D. The 100-hall medication 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 · D2021-09-10 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
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 is incontinent of bladder receives appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections for 1 of 1 Resident (Resident #59) who was observed for catheter placement. Nursing staff did not ensure Resident #59's indwelling urinary catheter tubing was securely anchored to his upper thigh by applying a strap. This deficient practice could affect residents with an indwelling urinary catheter causing penile laceration from prolonged traction from the unsecured catheter and it could contribute to urinary infections. Findings included: Record review of Resident #59's face sheet dated 9/9/21 revealed he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy (a subset of spastic cerebral palsy that affects both legs and arms), neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder (urinary bladder problems due to disease or injury of the central…
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 · D2021-09-10 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted 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 interview and record review the must maintain medical records on each resident that are accurately documented for 1 of 7 (#21) record reviewed for resident records in that: Resident #21's code status on face sheet and care plan did not match. This failure could affect all residents at risk of documentation errors and receiving inaccurate care and services. Findings included: Record review of Resident #21's face sheet dated on 9/8/2021 revealed she was admitted on [DATE] with code status of Do Not Resuscitate. Record review of Resident #21's Significant change MDS dated [DATE] revealed in section C-cognitive patterns indicated was severely impaired and no code status found. Record review of Resident #21's care plan dated 7/8/2021 indicated she was a full code. During an interview on 9/09/2021 at 3:34 p.m. with SW H confirmed Resident #21's code status on the face sheet and care plan did not match. SW H stated she was responsible for residents advanced directives. Record review of the facility's Resident…
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
$51,337 in federal fines across 2 penalties.
- $42,224 — penalty dated 2025-04-05
- $9,113 — penalty dated 2025-02-19
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.
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 | 1 of 5 | 3.2 | -2.2 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.8 | -0.8 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 2.7 | -1.7 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| COOPER, BRIAN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 10/01/2022 |
| TALLEY, CAUSHA | 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 |
| ROADRUNNER 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.
About 72% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $925K 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 676271. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-02-29, 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.