St James House Of Baytown
5800 W Baker Rd, Baytown, TX 77520 · For profit - Corporation · 105 certified beds · (281) 425-1200 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0603), cited Mar 2026
- it has citations for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607, F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- the CMS record shows $14,901 in federal fines (most recent 2025-01-10)
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 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 improved from 4 to 5 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 | 16.6% | 15.8% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 5.3% | 3.0% | 5.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.3% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 0.8% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 2.4% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star 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 | 5.4% | 3.3% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 16.8% | 14.0% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 23.7% | 18.0% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 3.3% | 3.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 14.7% | 13.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 8.0% | 9.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.6% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.5% | 88.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 17.4% | 25.7% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 5.5% | 12.3% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.12 | 2.17 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.00 | 2.06 | 1.80 | better |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
48.8% 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 72 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 72.3% 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 65 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 0.33 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 56% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 11% 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 | 48.8%CMS range 39.6–61.2 | 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 | 9.3%CMS range 6.6–13.0 | 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 | 72.3% | 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 | 66.2% | 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 | 58.5% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 97.1% | 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 | 2.1% | 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 | 2.1% | 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 | 7.5%CMS range 4.5–14.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.34 | 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 105 beds and averages 99.2 residents a day — about 94% occupied, or roughly 6 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.88 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.39 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.79 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.50 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.03 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.44 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 46% 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
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2025-01-10 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to immediately inform the resident, consult with the resident's physician, and notify consistent with his or her authority, the resident representative when there was a significant change in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status and a need to alter treatment significantly for 1 of 5 residents (CR#1) reviewed for physician notification. The facility failed to contact the physician for over 5 hours when CR#1 had shortness of breath and was gurgling. After approximately 5 hours, CR #1 was sent to the hospital via emergency transport and was admitted with Pneumonia, Acute Kidney Failure, and Septic Shock and expired 2 days later. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) situation was identified on [DATE]. While the IJ was removed on [DATE], the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of isolated with the potential for more than minimal harm, due to the facility's need to evaluate the effectiveness of corrective systems. This failure…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-26 · tag F0603 — failed to not confine residents against their will — isolatedProtect each resident from separation (from other residents, his/her room, or confinement to his/her room).
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from abuse, including mental, verbal, physical, and sexual abuse, as well as abuse involving the deprivation of goods and services by staff. This deficient practice was identified for one of five residents reviewed for abuse. Specifically, Resident #1 alleged that facility staff physically held his arm down while LVN S removed his personal cell phone without his consent. This deficient practice had the potential to result in psychosocial harm, including mental and verbal abuse, as well as deprivation of services by staff. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 3/26/2026, revealed a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included vitamin deficiency (not having enough nutrients that your body needs), pain, hypertensive heart disease (heart problems that occur due to high blood pressure over a long), type 2 diabetes (high blood sugar level) and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-26 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
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 implement written policies and procedures to prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, and exploitation of residents and misappropriation of resident property, for 1 of 5 residents (Resident#1) reviewed for abuse, in that: The facility failed to ensure staff followed the abuse, neglect, and exploitation policy related to reporting, investigating, and responding to allegations of abuse. This failure could place residents at risk for abuse, neglect, and exploitation.The findings included:Record review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 3/26/2026, revealed a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included vitamin deficiency (not having enough nutrients that your body needs), pain, hypertensive heart disease (heart problems that occur due to high blood pressure over a long), type 2 diabetes (high blood sugar level) and muscle weakness. Record review of Resident #1's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 12/25/2025,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-26 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure all alleged violations involving were reported immediately, but not later than 24 hours, to the administrator of the facility for 1 of 5 resident (Resident #1) reviewed for reporting. Resident #1 alleged that facility staff physically held his arm down while LVN S removed his personal cell phone without his consent, and this allegation was not reported to the administrator at the time it occurred. This failure had the potential to delay timely investigation and implementation of protective interventions, which could result in continued abuse, neglect, or misappropriation of resident property.Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 3/26/2026, revealed a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included vitamin deficiency (not having enough nutrients that your body needs), pain, hypertensive heart disease (heart problems that occur due to high blood pressure over a long), type 2…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-08-20 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — patternEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure that residents were free from any significant medication errors for 1 (Resident #88) of 4 residents reviewed for pharmacy services.-The facility failed to ensure Losartan (a blood pressure (BP) medication given to lower high blood pressure and help protect the kidneys) was administered to Resident #88 per physician order from [DATE] through [DATE]. -The facility failed to ensure accurate reconciliation (a process of comparing and verifying a resident's current list of medications with all prescribed medications to ensure accuracy and safety), of Resident #88's Losartan medication. -MA A administered Losartan 25 mg give 1/2 tablet to equal 12.5mg by mouth daily to Resident #88 and documented they administered Losartan 100 mg give 1 tablet by mouth daily. These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving desired therapeutic outcomes, increased side effects, adverse reactions and or decline in health. Findings included:…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-08-20 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — patternSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain clinical records in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices that are complete and accurately documented for 1 of 11 residents (Resident #88) whose records were reviewed for accuracy and completeness.MA A administered Losartan 25 mg give 1/2 tablet to equal 12.5mg by mouth daily to Resident #88 and documented they administered Losartan 100 mg give 1 tablet by mouth daily. This failure could place residents at risk for less than therapeutic benefits and/or not receiving ordered medications due to incomplete documentation. Findings include: Record review of Resident #88's admission Record dated 8/19/25 revealed he was an [AGE] year old male who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with some of the following diagnoses: acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, (a condition where the lungs cannot adequately oxygenate the blood leading to dangerously low levels of oxygen in the bloodstream), type 2 diabetes mellitus…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-10-09 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — patternProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents who needed respiratory care were provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan and the residents' goals and preferences for 2 of 3 residents (Residents #1 and #2) reviewed for respiratory care. 1. The facility failed to ensure the filter in Resident #1's oxygen concentrator was not dirty. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's portable oxygen cylinder was not empty while in use. 3. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2's oxygen cannula positioned in her nose for 2 hours. These failures could place residents who required respiratory treatments at risk of receiving inadequate respiratory treatments and could result in a decline in health. Findings Included: Resident #1 Record review of Resident #1's face sheet dated 10/9/2024 revealed she was a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility originally on 12/12/2018 and most…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-06-27 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choices for 1 (Resident #20) of 6 residents reviewed for quality of care in that: The facility failed to ensure Resident #20 received a weekly skin assessment by a licensed nurse between 12/27/22 - 6/26/24 in accordance with the facility policy and care plan. This failure could place residents at risk of unidentified skin breakdown. The findings include: Record review of Resident #20's face sheet dated 6/27/24 revealed a [AGE] year-old female who admitted on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included dementia, muscle wasting, heart failure, mild protein-calorie malnutrition, hypertension (high blood pressure), and major depressive disorders. Record review of Resident #20's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed the resident was unable to complete the brief interview for mental…
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 · E2023-05-12 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for food procurement in that: -Food items were found in the kitchen with expired and beyond the use by date. These failures could affect residents who ate food from the facility kitchen and place them at risk of food borne illness and disease. Findings include: Observation of the facility's kitchen and interview on 05/09/23 between 8:30 am and 8:45 am with the Dietary [NAME] A revealed the following: -A plastic container of Pimiento Cheese with a used by date 04/27/23 in the walk-in refrigerator. -A plastic container of sliced deli ham with a used by date 05/06/23 in the walk-in refrigerator. -A plastic container of American Sliced Cheese with a used by date 04/10/23 in the walk-in refrigerator. Interview with the Dietary [NAME] A on 05/09/23 at 8:35 AM, she said that the container of food items with expired used by date should have been used or discarded prior to the used by…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · C2023-05-12 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — widespreadDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility must dispose of garbage and refuse properly for 1 of 1 dumpster reviewed for garbage disposal. -The facility failed to ensure the dumpster lids and doors were secured. This failure could place residents at risk of infection from improperly disposed garbage. Findings include: Observation on 05-09-23 at 8:45 am, with Dietary [NAME] A revealed the facility's dumpster area, which was in the lot behind the dietary department had a commercial -size dumpster and the lid and door were open. Interview on 5-09-23, with Dietary [NAME] A she said that they were in-serviced that the Dumpster lids must be closed at all times when not in use. Interview on 5-10-23 at 10:00 am, with the Food Service Manager she said that the dumpster lids always must be closed to keep vermin, pests, and insects out of the dumpster and from entering the facility. Policy and Procedure for Food -Related Garbage and Rubbish Disposal read in part . 7. Outside dumpsters provided by garbage pick up services well be kept closed and free of surrounding litter . .
- 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
$14,901 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $14,901 — penalty dated 2025-01-10
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 | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| BROUSSARD, KENDALL | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2019 |
| CISNEROS, ALFRED | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 02/18/2008 |
| COBB, TRAVIS | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 10/05/2022 |
| COOPER, STEPHEN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 11/11/2022 |
| KERZEE, RICHARD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 09/24/2007 |
| SANDERS, JACK | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2019 |
| BAYTOWN TRANSITIONAL CARE CENTER LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/01/2019 |
| CALVIN H JONES ESTATE | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/11/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 14 rows in the source record cover these 8 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
2 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $360K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in TX
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Texas Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 675999. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-20, 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.