No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Focused Care at Allenbrook

4109 Allenbrook Dr, Baytown, TX 77521 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 120 certified beds · (281) 422-3546 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (281) 422-3546 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
1 actual-harm citation1 immediate-jeopardy citation CMS recorded as corrected before the inspection ended (past non-compliance)$8,400 in federal fines
Insights

The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
Worth asking about
  • it has 1 actual-harm citation
  • inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
  • the CMS record shows $8,400 in federal fines (most recent 2025-09-04)
  • its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)

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.

3/5
CMS overall
3 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 4 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 1 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 4 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★★★ 5/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
4308 Allenbrook Dr · (281) 422-4141 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
4002 Garth Rd · (281) 628-7186 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
3500 Garth Rd · (281) 420-4047 · Call to confirm hours
Park
4111 Allenbrook Dr · (281) 420-6597 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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 4 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 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.

Overall rating3★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased16.2%15.8%15.4%typical
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight0.4%3.0%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%0.3%0.9%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.0%0.8%2.0%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms2.0%2.4%6.5%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.0%0.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury3.9%3.3%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened20.0%14.0%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication16.1%18.0%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%98.0%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers6.3%3.8%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control17.2%13.4%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table11.4%9.6%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.6%1.5%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine70.6%88.0%79.4%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.

0.14U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.06hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.07hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.02hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.14 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 11% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 5% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNFnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNFnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identifiednot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care settingnot reported — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims 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 dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF staynot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsenednot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalizationnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.841.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.15
RN hours/ resident / day
0.84
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.06
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.05
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.15
RN hoursweekends
51.6%
Total nursing turnover
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 120 beds and averages 82.6 residents a day — about 69% occupied, or roughly 37 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 3.05 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.15 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 2.77 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.17 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.15 to 0.15 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 52% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.

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

3
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-03-13)
4
at the previous standard inspection (2024-12-11)

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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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.

14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2025-09-04 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure 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 environment remained as free from accidents as possible and that each resident received adequate supervision and assistance to prevent accidents for 1 of 30 residents (Resident #2) reviewed for adequate supervision.The facility failed to provide adequate supervision and put measures in place to prevent residents from eloping. Resident #2 had a history of exit seeking behaviors and wandering from his previous facility and eloped from this facility in 1/7/25. He was found by a good Samaritan in his wheelchair across the street from the facility.This noncompliance was identified as Past Non-Compliance. The IJ began on 1/7/2025 and ended on 1/8/2025. The facility corrected the noncompliance by conducting elopement assessments, updating care plans, providing in-services to staff on elopement, conducting elopement drills, and changing the door code for the secure unit. ---the facility failed to provide adequate supervision and put…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Actual harm · Hcited before2023-12-14 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — pattern
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure each resident receives adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent falls for 1 (Resident #1) of six residents reviewed for accidents, hazards, and supervision. The facility interventions did not prevent 18 unwitnessed falls and 16 witnessed falls with multiple injuries and hospitalization. The facility failed to implement the physician order for a use of a helmet to prevent injuries from falls. Facility staff, the NP and the Rehab Director were unaware of this physician order. These failures placed residents who are dependent on staff for activities of daily living, supervision, and bed mobility at risk of not being adequately supervised, no adequate intervention, not putting appropriate devices in place, worsening of existing wounds, decline in quality of care, and experiencing pain. Findings include: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet dated 11/29/23 revealed original admission date to facility was 5/9/23 and was re-admitted on…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-03-13 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare and distribute food in accordance with professional standards for food safety in that -The facility failed to ensure that dented cans were not stored with undented cans.The facility failed to ensure that one of 2 refrigerators in the dining room was free from expired food products. These failures placed residents at risk of foodborne illness.Findings included:Kitchen observation with Dietary Manager on 03/10/26 at 8:30AM revealed there was one 28 oz can, of tomato soup that was dented stored together with un-dented can goods. The Dietary Manager removed the dented can from the shelf and said it was supposed to be in the office for return.Observation of Refrigerator #1 in the dining room revealed-2-5 lbs. of containers of cottage cheese -expired 02/16/266-one-quart half and half milk with expired date of 03/04/262-Gallons of milk with expired date of 03/01/262-Gallons of milk with expired date of 03/08/26 andone gallon of milk with expired date of 03/09/26.The dietary Manager took all expired…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-03-13 · tag F0641 — isolated
    Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure the assessment accurately reflected the status for one (Resident #10) of 18 residents reviewed for accuracy of assessments. The facility failed to ensure Resident #10's annual MDS assessment accurately reflected her lack of natural teeth in her oral cavity.This failure could place residents at risk for receiving inadequate care and services due to inaccurate assessments.The findings included: Record review of Resident #10's face sheet dated 03/11/26 indicated she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was re-admitted on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (lung disease), dementia (a condition in which a person loses the ability to think, remember, learn, make decisions, and solve problems), behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, anxiety, essential hypertension ( high blood pressure), generalized anxiety disorder, chronic pain syndrome, major depressive disorder, lack 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-03-13 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolated
    Ensure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the medication error rates were not 5 percent or greater. During medication administration, a medication error rate of 7 percent was identified (2 errors out of 28 opportunities). These errors involved 2 of 9 residents (resident #20 and resident #52) and 1 of 2 MA (MA J) administering medications. 1. The facility failed to ensure that MA J did not attempt to administer divalproex sodium 500mg oral tablet to Resident #20 during the morning medication pass, when the physician's order indicated the medication was to be administered at bedtime. 2. The facility failed to ensure that MA J did not administer zinc sulfate oral tablet to Resident #52 when the physician's order specified zinc sulfate oral capsule resulting in administration of medication in a form inconsistent with the prescribed order. These failures placed residents at risk for medication errors and potential adverse outcomes.Findings include: Resident #20: Record…

    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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-12-11 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for dietary services. -The facility failed to label, and date left over food items stored in the walk-in cooler. -The facility failed to ensure dented cans were not stored together with undented cans. These failures could place residents at risk for food contamination and foodborne illness due to cross contamination. The findings included: Initial kitchen observation on 12/09/24 at 8:40 AM revealed the following - (All food items were identified by the Dietary Manager) observation of the walk-in freezer in the kitchen revealed. -an open bag of chicken parties which was unlabeled and undated, -a half bag of chicken strips was un-labeled and undated. -3 full bags of chicken parties were unlabeled and undated. -chicken parties in a plastic bag were not sealed, were unlabeled and undated Observation of the dry goods storage revealed one 6 Ibs dented can of sliced apple and one…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-12-11 · tag F0636 — isolated
    Assess the resident completely in a timely manner when first admitted, and then periodically, at least every 12 months.
    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 conduct a comprehensive assessment of a resident in accordance with the timeframes, within 14 calendar days after admission, excluding readmission in which there is no significant change in the resident's physical or mental condition and not less than once every 12 months for 1 of 18 residents (Resident #47) reviewed for comprehensive annual assessments. The facility failed to ensure Resident #47's Annual MDS Assessment was completed within 14 days of the ARD. This failure could place residents at-risk of not having their assessments completed timely, which could result in denial of services and or payment for services. The findings include: Record review of Resident #47's admission Record, dated 12/11/2024, revealed a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident #47 had diagnoses which included fracture of right femur (broken thigh bone), dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), repeated falls, major…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-12-11 · tag F0641 — isolated
    Ensure each resident receives an accurate assessment.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the assessments accurately reflect the resident's status for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #24) reviewed for accurate assessments. The facility failed to ensure Resident #24's MDS accurately reflected the resident's falls. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving needed services or receiving improper or incorrect care and services necessary for their physical, mental and psychosocial well-being. The findings include: Record review of Resident #24's face sheet reflected a [AGE] year-old male with an admission date of 8/15/2024. Resident #24 had diagnoses which included Displaced Intertrochanteric Fracture of Left Femur (Broken Hip), Unspecified Dementia (decline in mental abilities that affects daily life), Schizophrenia (chronic mental illness that affects how one thinks, feels, and behaves), Muscle Weakness, Difficulty in Walking, Unspecified Lack of Coordination, and Repeated Falls. Record review of Resident #24's Quarterly…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-12-11 · tag F0644 — isolated
    Coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to were provided an accurate Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Screening Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to refer a resident with newly evident or possible serious mental disorder, intellectual disability, or a related condition for level II resident review for reviewed for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #47 and Resident #25) reviewed for resident assessments. The facility failed to update the PASRR Level 1 forms for Resident #47 and Resident #25 to indicate mental health illness. This failure could place residents at risk of not having their special needs assessed and met by the facility. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #47's admission Record, dated 12/11/2024, revealed a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident #47 had with diagnoses which included fracture of right femur (broken thigh bone), dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), repeated falls,…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-09-30 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure that resident received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for CR#1 reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed to monitor and ensured CR#1 received proper dressing changes on the Intra right jugular Vein (Central Line) on CR#1's neck. The facility failed monitor and ensured CR#1 received proper dressing changes on CR#1's Cholecystectomy tube. This deficient practice could affect residents by diminishing their quality of care. Findings Included: Record review of CR #1's undated Face Sheet reflected she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. She was a [AGE] year-old female with the following diagnoses: heart failure (heart fails to pump blood to give body a normal supply), hypertension (high blood pressure), peripheral vascular disease (poor circulation in blood vessels), gastroesophageal reflux disease (stomach acid repeatedly flows back up into the tube connecting the mouth…

    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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Fcited before2023-11-02 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    Procure 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 serve food under sanitary conditions in 1 of 1 kitchen: -The facility failed to ensure that the kitchen floors were clean and free of food particles. -The facility failed to ensure that food preparation equipment was clean and free of grease build up. -The facility failed to ensure food items in the refrigerator\freezer were dated, labeled, and appropriately sealed. These failures placed all residents who ate food served by the kitchen at risk of food-borne illness. Findings included: Observation on 10/31/23 from 9:15AM to 9:30AM, revealed the following: *the kitchen floor was dirty with food particles and grease around the cooking area and behind the stove. *One of two cooking stoves had grease built up inside and around outer part of the stove. * one of one commercial can opener in the kitchen revealed had grease and dark looking substance around the cutting blade and the blade holder. * freezer #1 revealed the floor of the freezer had food particles and the door had grease build up.…

    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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-11-02 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — pattern
    Provide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
    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 maintained acceptable nutritional status, such as usual body weight or desirable body weight, unless the resident clinical condition demonstrated this was not possible, for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #62) reviewed for nutritional status, in that; Resident #62 who admitted to the facility with poor nutrition was not provided prompt intervention to prevent severe weight loss of -16.85 pounds in 6 months. This failure could affect all residents in the facility with weight loss at increased risk of weight loss. Findings included: Record review of Resident #62's admission sheet revealed she was an [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included muscle weakness, unspecified abnormalities of gait and mobility (a change to your walking pattern), depression, dementia (a group of thinking and social symptoms that interferes with daily functioning), and type 2 diabetes. Record review 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-11-02 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, observation and record review the facility failed to revise the comprehensive care plan for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #62) reviewed for care plans in that: Facility failed to revise Resident #62's care plan to have assistance with feeding during each meal. This failure could place all residents at risk of not having their individually needs met and place them at risk of not receiving proper nutrition. Findings include: Record review of Resident #62's admission sheet revealed she was an [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included muscle weakness, unspecified abnormalities of gait and mobility (a change to your walking pattern), depression, dementia (a group of thinking and social symptoms that interferes with daily functioning), and type 2 diabetes. Record review of Resident #62's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed she had a BIMS score 06 out of 15 indicating severely impaired. Record review of Resident #62's Comprehensive Care Plan…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-11-02 · tag F0661 — isolated
    Ensure necessary information is communicated to the resident, and receiving health care provider at the time of a planned discharge.
    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 a post-discharge plan of care was developed with the participation of the resident and, with the resident's consent, the resident representative(s), which will assist the resident to adjust to his or her new living environment and the post-discharge plan of care must indicate where the individual plans to reside, any arrangements that have been made for the resident's follow up care and any post-discharge medical and non-medical services for 1 of 4 residents (CR # 1) reviewed for an effective discharge process. The facility failed to complete a discharge summary prior to and after CR#1's discharge. This failure could place residents at risk for incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information recorded regarding discharged residents and failures in the continuity of care for residents. Findings include: Record review of the undated admission sheet for CR # 1 revealed a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE], readmitted on…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

$8,400 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

  • $8,400 — penalty dated 2025-09-04

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.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to FOCUSED POST ACUTE CARE PARTNERS — 25 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 3 of 51.9+1.1 vs chain
Health inspection 4 of 52.1+1.9 vs chain
Staffing 1 of 51.2-0.2 vs chain
Quality measures 4 of 54.0≈ chain avg
The other 24 homes this chain runs (chain average 1.9★, per CMS)

A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleSince
FOCUSED POST ACUTE CARE PARTNERS LLCOrganizationDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 02/01/2017
FPACP ALLENBROOK LLCOrganizationDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTERESTsince 02/01/2017
MCKENZIE, MARKIndividualINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 02/01/2017
STRUBBE, LORETTAIndividualINDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 07/01/2018
CONLEY, SHAWNIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 02/01/2017
FOCUSED POST ACUTE CARE PARTNERS MANAGEMENT, LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 02/01/2017
COLLINS-GAINES, JOSHUAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 02/12/2024
POWELL, SAVANNAHIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 07/01/2024
ROBERTS, MATTHEWIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2024

CMS files one row per role, so the 20 rows in the source record cover these 9 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

3 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.

$5.6M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-10.8%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$287K
Related-party expense5% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 86%Medicare 1%Other / private 13%

About 86% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. This home reported $287K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent 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

$221per resident / day
operating cost
$6,718per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$199per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Texas
$5,627/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$7,604/mo
Nursing home (private)
$5,666/mo
Assisted living

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 675079. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-13, 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.

What to do next