Sage Park Austin
4401 Spicewood Springs Rd, Austin, TX 78759 · For profit - Partnership · 46 certified beds · (512) 418-8822 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)
- inspectors cited 2 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- the CMS record shows $99,713 in federal fines (most recent 2023-10-04)
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 3 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 2 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 2 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 2 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 2 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 | 23.7% | 15.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.0% | 3.0% | 5.4% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.1% | 0.3% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 4.3% | 0.8% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 16.0% | 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 | 15.7% | 3.3% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 16.3% | 18.0% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 30.0% | 98.0% | 95.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.0% | 3.8% | 4.7% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 6.3% | 13.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 2.8% | 9.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.9% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 19.6% | 88.0% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 28.8% | 25.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 5.7% | 12.3% | 12.0% | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
43.3% 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 104 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 31.8% 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 44 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 0.78 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 94% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 4% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 43.3%CMS range 31.8–54.0 | 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 | 10.3%CMS range 6.1–14.1 | 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 | 31.8% | 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 | 27.3% | 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 | 34.1% | 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 | 98.8% | 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 | 97.6% | 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 | 96.7% | 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 | 3.8% | 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 | 1.2% | 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 | 6.9%CMS range 3.9–10.8 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.11 | 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 46 beds and averages 28.9 residents a day — about 63% occupied, or roughly 17 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. 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 4.24 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 1.07 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.21 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 3.68 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.46 on weekdays — 18% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 1.10 to 0.99 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.
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.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2023-10-04 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — patternEnsure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
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 licensed nurses had the specific competencies and skills sets necessary to care for residents needs' as identified through resident assessments, and described in the plan of care for one of one resident (Resident #1) and 2 of 2 nurses reviewed for competent nursing staff. The facility failed to ensure nursing staff were properly trained and nursing staff failed to reported to management when they were unable to obtain the medication from the Omnicell Automated Medication Dispensing Systems. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was identified on 10/02/23. While the IJ was removed on 10/04/23, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of pattern and a severity of actual harm that is not immediate jeopardy due to the facility's need to evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems. This failure could place residents at risk for serious injury, serious harm, serious impairment, or death. Findings include: R1 is a [AGE] year-old…
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 · K2023-10-04 · 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 one of one resident (Resident #1) reviewed for medications. The facility failed to ensure nursing staff were properly trained and nursing staff failed to reported to management when they were unable to obtain the medication from the Omnicell Automated Medication Dispensing Systems. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was identified on 10/02/23. While the IJ was removed on 10/04/23, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of pattern and a severity of actual harm that is not immediate jeopardy due to the facility's need to evaluate the effectiveness of the corrective systems. This failure could place residents at risk for serious injury, serious harm, serious impairment, or death. Findings include: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included acute respiratory failure 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 · E2025-05-07 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for 1 of 1 dining room reviewed for environment. The facility failed to ensure the roof/ceiling of the dining area did not leak during a rainstorm on 05/05/25. This failure placed residents at risk of discomfort and diminished quality of life. Findings included: Observation on 05/05/25 at 12:10 PM revealed the facility dining room had two main seating areas which both led into a side room with a slanted ceiling and windows wrapped around all sides. The ceiling was composed of large planks laid side by side, and the seam between the second and third planks dripped heavily into the room and onto the floor. The room did not contain residents but was visible from the resident seating areas, and several residents were heard to remark on the leak. The room did contain a hydration cart with an ice chest, ice scoop, and disposable cups. CNA B was heard telling the other staff in the dining area she would retrieve a wet floor sign 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 before2025-05-07 · 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 for 1 of 2 kitchens (main kitchen) reviewed for food service safety. The facility failed to ensure, on 05/05/25 that: - the ice cream freezer and dairy refrigerator surfaces were clean, - breakfast sausages and bacon were stored in a safe manner - milk and buttermilk were not stored in the facility dairy refrigerator past the Sell By dates. This failure place residents at risk of food-borne illness. Findings included: Observation on 05/05/25 at 09:26 AM reflected the following conditions in the facility kitchen: -an open cardboard box containing a plastic bag of breakfast sausages open to the air, not labeled or dated, in the walk-in refrigerator; -an upright, stainless steel, two-door ice cream freezer in the dry storage closet with sticky and crusted material covering the doors and door handles -a stainless steel pan of cooked bacon covered in plastic cling wrap and dated 05/04/25, was inside 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 · E2025-05-07 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — patternDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
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 dispose of garbage and refuse properly for 2 of 2 dumpsters reviewed for garbage disposal. The facility failed to ensure the recycling and trash dumpster doors and windows were closed on 05/06/25. This failure placed residents at risk of pest infestation and disease. Findings included: Observation on 05/06/25 at 10:30 AM revealed the facility recycling dumpster was open at the top, and the facility trash dumpster was open at the top and on the side. Numerous flies were seen within the trash dumpster. Observation on 05/06/25 at 02:45 PM revealed the recycling and trash dumpsters were still open. There were still flies in the dumpster. During an interview on 05/06/25 at 02:04 PM, the LCK stated the kitchen trash was taken out by the dishwasher each day, but the nursing staff also used the dumpsters. He stated they were supposed to make sure the side and the top of dumpster was closed. He stated it was important to ensure they were closed so rodents, birds, and insects would not infest the trash and so trash…
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 · D2025-05-07 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide 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
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 (Nurse Cart) of 5 Medication carts reviewed for drug storage. The facility failed to ensure that expired insulin pens were removed from the Nurse Cart on 05/06/25. This failure could place residents at risk for ineffective diabetes treatments and infections from contaminated insulin pens. Findings included: Observation on 05/06/25 at 02:30 PM revealed the Nurse Cart belonging to LVN-A contained two insulin pens with opened dates of 03/07/25. The facility sticker placed on each pen when it was opened stated, discard 28 days after opening which would have made the expiration date of the 2 insulin pens 04/04/25. In an interview with LVN-A on 05/06/25 at 2:35 PM she stated the policy was to discard insulin pens 1 month after opening because they could have become contaminated. She stated the negative outcome to residents if not discarded was they could get an infection if the pens became contaminated and were used past 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 · D2025-05-07 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, as well as appealing options.
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 food that accommodated their preferences for 2 of 24 residents (Residents #177 and #178) reviewed for food and nutritional services. The facility failed to ensure that Residents #177 and #178 were provided hot sauce or salsa with their Cinco de Mayo meal of Mexican food by request and in accordance with their cultural preferences. The failure placed residents at risk of not having their cultural needs met. Findings included: Review of the undated face sheet for Resident #177 reflected a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included: anemia (low blood iron), end stage renal disease (kidney disease), type two diabetes mellitus (trouble producing insulin leading to high blood sugar), peripheral vascular disease (poor blood circulation to the arms and legs often leading to trouble healing wounds in those areas), anxiety disorder, cognitive communication deficit (communication…
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 · D2024-05-07 · 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
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as possible for 1 (Hall 100-A to 108A) of 3 halls reviewed for environment. The facility failed to remove an exposed blood soiled scalpel, needle, syringe, and 2 lancets from an unlocked and opened metal sharps container holder with no red, puncture resistant, leak-proof safety container insert on a wound treatment cart. This failure could place residents and staff at risk for injury. Findings included: An observation on 05/07/24 at 11:15 AM on Hall 100-A to 108-A a wound treatment cart was seen with its metal biohazard sharps containment door unlocked and wide open; there was not a red, puncture resistant, leakproof safety container insert in the metal containment and there were 5 items observed sitting at the bottom of the metal exposed containment which included an exposed size 15 scalpel with blood visible on the blade, 2 lancets, a needle, and a used medication syringe. The bottom of the metal container and its door were soiled with a dark yellow…
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 · D2024-05-07 · 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
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 1 (Hall 100-A to 108A) of 3 halls reviewed for infection control practices. The facility failed to remove an exposed blood soiled scalpel, needle, syringe, and 2 lancets from an unlocked and opened metal sharps container holder with no red, puncture resistant, leak-proof safety container insert on a wound treatment cart. These failures could place residents and staff at risk for blood/ bodily fluid exposure, contamination, and the spread of infection. Findings included: An observation on 05/07/24 at 11:15 AM, on Hall 100-A to 108-A a wound treatment cart was seen with its metal biohazard sharps containment door unlocked and wide open; there was not a red, puncture resistant, leakproof safety container insert in the metal containment and there were 5 items observed sitting at the bottom of 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 · Ecited before2024-03-13 · 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, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for one of one kitchen reviewed for food and nutrition services. The facility failed to ensure the food was properly stored in the freezer and the pantry. This failure could place residents at risk being served food that could have been crossed-contaminated, frost bitten, and foodborne illness. Finding included: Observation on 03/11/2024 between 9:30 am and 10:30 am revealed an open bag of frozen fish was undated in the walk-in freezer. The box of fish was pulled forward to show the DM the fish was exposed, and he stated the staff was going to cook it that day. Continued observation walking throughout the freezer revealed there was a box of chicken nuggets open and exposed which was 2 boxes down on the same shelf with the fish. There was a box of what appeared to be hamburger patties open and exposed. Observation of the pantry revealed there was an open and exposed bag of crotons. The DM stated that it was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-01-20 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor 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 in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life for 1 of 24 residents (Resident #12) reviewed for dignity. CNA D referred to an adult brief as diaper in the presence of Resident #12. This failure placed resident at risk of embarrassment, dignity, and diminished quality of life. The findings included: Review of Resident #12's Face Sheet dated 01/20/23 reflected a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of HTN (high blood pressure), CKD, heart failure, difficulty in walking, cognitive communication deficit (difficulty in thinking and using language), need for assistance with personal care, muscle weakness and anxiety disorder. Review of Resident #12's MDS dated [DATE] reflected a BIMS score of 12, indicating moderate cognition impairment. MDS reflected Resident #12 has indwelling catheter 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 · D2023-01-20 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide 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 provide residents respiratory care consistent with professional standards of practice for 2 or 8 residents (Resident #16 and Resident #4) reviewed for oxygen therapy. The oxygen tubing on Resident #16 was not labeled with a date. The humidifier bottle for Resident #4 on the oxygen concentrator was empty for an unknown time. This failure placed residents at risk of nose and throat discomfort, skin breakdown, inadequate respiratory care and infection control. The findings included: Review of Resident #16's Face Sheet dated 01/20/23 reflected a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of heart failure with presence of cardiac pacemaker, dementia, HTN (high blood pressure), CKD, and muscle weakness. Review of Resident #16's MDS dated [DATE] reflected a BIMs score of 13, indicating intact cognition. MDS indicated Resident #16 requires oxygen therapy. Review of Resident #16's Care Plan dated 08/07/22 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.
“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
$99,713 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $99,713 — penalty dated 2023-10-04
Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| S-H FORTY-NINE OPCO VENTURES LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 08/29/2014 |
| CP OPCO VENTURES VI LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/18/2017 |
| SHP REIT I LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/18/2017 |
| SHP REIT I TRS LLC | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 01/18/2017 |
| FOLTA-MAY, REBECCA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 10/17/2020 |
| SPRAGINS, ALAN | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 06/01/2018 |
| WASHBURN, ALEXANDER | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 07/19/2018 |
| JUNIPER MANAGEMENT, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 02/01/2021 |
5 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.
A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
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 675533. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-07, 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.