Azle Manor Health Care, L.L.L.P.
721 Dunaway Ln, Azle, TX 76020 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 142 certified beds · (817) 444-2536 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- inspectors cited 3 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- the CMS record shows $44,548 in federal fines (most recent 2025-07-16)
- 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 (2/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (61%) runs well above the national median (45%)
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) | 2 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 | 3 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 22.5% | 15.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.7% | 3.0% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.8% | 0.3% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 1.5% | 0.8% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 7.7% | 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 | 18.9% | 14.0% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 13.8% | 18.0% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.0% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.5% | 3.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 18.2% | 13.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 6.3% | 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 | 83.8% | 88.0% | 79.4% | typical |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 15.8% | 25.7% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.0% | 12.3% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.66 | 2.17 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.11 | 2.06 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ 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.
50.0% 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 92 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 50.0% 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 64 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 0.30 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 47% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 8% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 50.0%CMS range 41.3–56.8 | 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 | 10.1%CMS range 6.8–14.3 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 50.0% | 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 | 59.4% | 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 | 43.8% | 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 | 84.0% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 2.5% | 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 3.6–11.3 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.97 | 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 142 beds and averages 106.5 residents a day — about 75% occupied, or roughly 36 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.32 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.33 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.06 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 2.89 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.50 on weekdays — 17% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.35 to 0.27 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 61% is well above the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2025-04-26 · 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 observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents' environment remained as free of accident hazards as possible for 1 of 12 residents (Residents #1) reviewed for accidents/hazards. 1.The facility failed to remove a mechanical lift that was missing a metal clip from service from 04/15/25-04/25/25. 2. The facility failed to ensure CNA A and CNA B safely transferred Resident #1. CNA A and CNA B placed Resident #1 in the lift and did not secure the sling resulting in the resident falling out of the sling on 4/15/25. This fall caused an orbital fracture to the face of Resident #1. An IJ was identified on 04/25/25. The IJ template was provided to the facility on [DATE] at 2:31 PM. While the IJ was removed on 04/26/25, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of isolated and a severity level of potential for more than minimal harm because the facility was continuing to monitor the implementation and effectiveness of their Plan of Removal. This failure could…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2024-06-06 · 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 resident's environment remained as free of accident hazards as was possible; and each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 1 (Resident #1) of 12 residents reviewed for accidents. The facility failed to provide Resident #1 with ADL care in a safe manner, allowing Resident #1 to fall off her bed on 5-21-2024 between 4:00-4:30 PM, while her shirt was being changed by a staff member. An immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was identified on 6-5-2024 at 5:41 PM, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of isolated and a severity level of no actual harm with a potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy because of the facility's need to evaluate the effectiveness of its corrective systems. This failure resulted in actual harm due to facility staff not following proper transfer protocol which caused Resident #1 to fall and incur a fracture, placing…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-06-06 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such 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 observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that adequate pain management was provided to residents who require such services, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's goals and preferences for 1 (Resident #1) of 12 residents reviewed for pain management. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was properly assessed, monitored, and received effective pain management after Resident #1 fell on 5-21-2024 at approximately 4:30 PM and sustained a comminuted fracture of the left distal femur just above the femoral condyles and was not sent to the hospital for treatment for 6.5 hours at approximately 11:00 PM. The nurse was not notified for 1 to 1.5 hours of the fall until Resident #1's family member intervened and notified the nurses of Resident #1's pain. An immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was identified on 6-5-2024 at 5:41 PM, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of isolated and 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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-07-16 · 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 observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that each resident received adequate supervision to prevent accidents for one (Resident #1) of 2 residents reviewed for supervision. The facility failed to use an assistive device to reposition Resident #1 when on date_06/18/2025 CNA A and CNA B lifted resident by way of underarms instead of using a mechanical lift or gait belt when Resident #1 sustained an injury and was sent to the hospital. The noncompliance was identified as PNC. The PNC began on 06/18/2025 and ended on 07/17/2025. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the investigation began. This failure could place residents requiring reposition assistance at risk for injury and accidents with potential for more than minimal harm. The findings included:Record Review of Resident #1's admission Record undated revealed; Resident #1 was a [AGE] year-old female initial admission date 12/23/2022 with the following diagnosis: OTHER DISPLACED FRACTURE OF UPPER END 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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2023-10-05 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision to prevent accidents for 1 (Resident #14) of 20 residents reviewed accidents and hazards. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #14 was accurrately assessed for hot liquids, failed to measure temperature of the coffee at serve, and failed to ensure environment was clear of accidents, causing Resident #14 to spill hot coffee on himself. This failure could affect the residents at the facility by placing them at risk for accidents related to hot liquid that led to injuries such as burns. Findings included: Record review of residents #14's face sheet, dated 10/04/2023, revealed a male [AGE] year-old male admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cerebral infarction (stroke), and hemiplegia and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting left non-dominant side. Record review of Resident #14's Quarterly MDS dated [DATE], revealed a BIMS of 15 indicating cognition was intact.…
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 before2026-02-20 · 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 safety in the facility's only kitchen in that: 1. The facility failed to ensure food items placed in the refrigerator were sealed, dated, and labeled appropriately. 2. [NAME] B failed to wear gloves during food temperature check for potatoes and did not use sanitized cloth or alcohol wipes to wipe off the thermometer, instead she used her ungloved fingers to slide the potatoes pieces off the thermometer back into the potato pan to be served on 02/18/26. 3. The facility failed to ensure the large container of bulk sugar was closed and not left open. 4. The facility failed to ensure two large garbage containers in the kitchen had lids on them, when trash was in the containers and they were not being used on 02/18/26. These failures could place all residents who consume food prepared by facility staff at increased risk of food-borne illness and not receiving adequate nutritionFindings included:An observation 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 · Dcited before2026-02-20 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide safe and secured storage of drugs and biologicals by not keeping medication in locked compartments, for 1 of 3 carts reviewed for medication storage in that:MA A failed to lock medication cart while not in use.This failure could result in physical injuries to residents; drug diversions, ingestion of medications causing adverse effects and violation of HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act). Findings included:Observation on 02/19/26 at 1:31 PM revealed a medication cart that was left unattended and unlocked. The cart was facing the wall between the 200 hallway and the 300 hallways. Staff and residents were observed walking by the medication cart. In an interview on 2/19/2026 at 1:34 PM, MA A asked if surveyor wanted to look at the cart, she took her key out when she noticed it was unlocked. MA A stated she was unsure why she left the cart unlocked. She stated that all carts should be locked while not in use. The risks of leaving carts unlocked included residents getting ahold 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.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-20 · 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 diseases and infections for one of nine residents (Residents #16) reviewed for infection control. CNA D failed to change her gloves or perform hand hygiene before and after incontinent care for Resident #16 on 02/19/26. This failure could place residents at risk of contamination and infections.Record review of Resident #16's admission record, dated 02/19/26 reflected an [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her primary diagnosis was metabolic encephalopathy (this is a brain disorder caused by a chemical imbalance in the blood that affects brain function.) Record review of Resident #16's comprehensive MDS, dated [DATE], reflected a BIMS score of 11, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. MDS bladder and bowel…
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 before2024-11-13 · 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, and accordance with professional standards for food service safety in 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for food and nutrition services. 1. The facility failed to ensure stored food was properly labeled (marked or identified with the contents in the bag), dated ( date the item was received into the facility) . 2. The facility failed to ensure dented cans were not stored in the dry goods area. 3. The facility failed to ensure scoops were not stored in the Dry goods. These failures could place all residents at risk of cross contamination and food-borne illness. Findings include: Observation on 11/11/2024 at 8:54 AM, during initial kitchen rounds of the freezer, dry goods and kitchen area revealed: 1. An unopened bag of breaded chicken parts were not labeled (marked or identified with the contents in the bag) and not dated (date the item was received into the faciliy) and not in the original box. 2. A 10 oz can of Jalapeno Peppers was compressed or had a deformed shape near the opening. 3. A scoop was left…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-11-13 · 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 observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure, in accordance with State and Federal laws, the facility must store all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments under proper temperature controls, and permitted only authorized personnel to have access to the keys and provide separately locked, permanently affixed compartments for storage of controlled drugs listed in Schedule II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1976 and other drugs subject to abuse, except when the facility used single unit package drug distribution system in which the quantity stored is minimal and a missing dose could be readily detected for 3 of 8 residents (Residents #71, #304 and #305), 1 of 2 medication rooms (Med room A), and 1 of 1 treatment carts (Treatment cart A) reviewed for medication storage. 1.The facility failed to ensure the medication betadine (also known as povidone-iodine a topical antiseptic) was not disposed of and was left in Resident #304's trash can after…
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 · D2024-11-13 · 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 provide written information to all adult residents concerning the right to accept or refuse medical or surgical treatment and, at the resident's option, formulate an advance directive for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #72) reviewed for advanced directives. The facility failed to ensure Resident #72 had a current copy of an advance directive in his medical record. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of not having their wishes known, which could delay emergency treatment . Findings include: Record review of Resident #72's face sheet, dated [DATE], reflected a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included non-traumatic intracranial hemorrhage (this is stroke with brain bleed), stroke affecting left side, difficulty walking, and frontal lobe and executive deficit following other non-traumatic intracranial hemorrhage (this is when the frontal lobe of the brain is damaged due to bleeding and the skills…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-11-13 · 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 diseases and infections for 2 of 8 (Residents #86 and #304) residents reviewed for infection control. 1.The facility failed to ensure medication were dispensed directly into a medication cup and not into LVN D's palm. 2.The facility failed to implement an infection control and prevention that included wound care procedures and cross contamination for Resident #304. These failures could place residents at risk of infectious diseases, cross contamination, staph infection and hospitalization. The finding include: 1. Record review of Resident #86's face sheet, dated 11/12/14, reflected an [AGE] year-old female who was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and a readmission on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included orthostatic hypotension (low…
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 · D2024-11-13 · tag F0925 — failed to control pests — isolatedMake sure there is a pest control program to prevent/deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program so that the facility was free of pests and rodents for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #50) reviewed for effective pest control on Hall 6. 1) The facility failed to effectively treat for the flies in Resident #50's room. 2) The facility failed to implement preventative measures to prevent flies. These failures could place residents at risk for the potential spread of infection, cross-contamination, and decreased quality of life. Findings include: Record review of Resident #50's face sheet, dated 08/12/2024, reflected the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #50 hadj diagnoses which included Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation (when a heartbeat returns to normal within 7 days, on its own or with treatment); Vascular Dementia, Unspecified, Severity with Other Behavioral Disturbances (changes in personality, behavior, and mood, such as depression, agitation, and anger); and Paraplegia,…
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
$44,548 in federal fines across 4 penalties.
- $10,634 — penalty dated 2025-07-16
- $16,149 — penalty dated 2025-04-26
- $10,322 — penalty dated 2024-06-06
- $7,443 — penalty dated 2023-10-05
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BURMONT, INC. | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; LIMITED PARTNERSHIP INTEREST | 99% | since 07/30/2013 |
| PORTER, KRIS | Individual | CONTRACTED MANAGING EMPLOYEE; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/22/2025 |
| PORTER, CHRIS | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/22/2025 |
| ARNOLD, JASON | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/22/2025 |
| MONTGOMERY, MITCHELL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/22/2025 |
| MONTGOMERY, RAYMOND | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/22/2025 |
| OAK MANAGEMENT | Organization | GENERAL PARTNERSHIP INTEREST | — | since 07/30/2013 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 13 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
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 74% 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. 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 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in TX
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 676003. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-20, 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.