Reagan County Care Center
1300 North Main, Big Lake, TX 76932 · For profit - Corporation · 36 certified beds · (325) 884-5614 Medicaid only — no Medicare
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- the CMS record shows $111,168 in federal fines (most recent 2024-02-20)
- its facility-reported quality-measure 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.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 1 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 | 1 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 1 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 3 to 4 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 | 25.7% | 15.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.0% | 3.0% | 5.4% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.8% | 0.3% | 0.9% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.9% | 0.8% | 2.0% | typical for the 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 | 9.6% | 3.3% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 36.1% | 14.0% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 16.7% | 18.0% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.0% | 3.8% | 4.7% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 35.4% | 13.4% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 14.8% | 9.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.61 | 2.17 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 5.12 | 2.06 | 1.80 | worse |
* 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.
Staffing
How full it usually is: this home is certified for 36 beds and averages 29.7 residents a day — about 82% occupied, or roughly 6 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.78 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.59 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 3.45 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 4.33 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.97 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.56 to 0.69 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · D2026-01-14 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate 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, observation, and record review, the facility failed to incorporate recommendations from a PASRR evaluation report into a resident assessment, care planning, and transition of care for 1 (Resident #1) of 2 residents reviewed for PASRR services. The facility failed to submit a complete an accurate request for NFSS in the LTC online portal within 20 days after the IDT meeting. This failure could place residents who were PASRR positive at risk of not getting the PASRR services for a better quality of life and could lead to a decline in health.Findings include: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet dated 01/14/2026 revealed a [AGE] year-old male, admitted to the facility on [DATE]. He had the following diagnoses: cerebral palsy (a group of disorders that affect a person's ability to move and maintain balance and posture) depression (a serious mood disorder causing persistent sadness, loss of interest and affecting thoughts) and chronic kidney disease (progressive damage and loss of function…
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 · F2025-05-15 · tag F0851 — widespreadElectronically submit to CMS complete and accurate direct care staffing information, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow guidelines for mandatory submission of staffing information based on payroll data in a uniform format. Long-term care facilities must electronically submit to CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) complete and accurate direct care staffing information, including information for agency and contract staff, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data in a uniform format according to specifications established by CMS . The facility failed to submit Payroll Based Journal staffing information to CMS for the fiscal year Quarter 1 2025 (October 1 - December 31). The facility's failure could place residents at risk for personal needs not being identified and met, decreased quality of care, decline in health status, and decreased feelings of well-being within their living environment. The findings included: Record review of the PBJ Staffing Data Report CASPER Report 1705D FY (Fiscal Year) Quarter 1 2025 (October 1 - December 31) dated 05/12/2025, revealed the following entry: Failed to Submit Data for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-05-15 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #2) reviewed for incontinent care. The facility failed insure CNA A changed her contaminated gloves and clean Resident #2's penis area during incontinent care. These failures could place resident's risk for cross contamination and the spread of infection. Finding included: 1. Record review of Resident #2's electronic admission record dated 05/14/2025 indicated he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Alzheimer ' s disease and aphasia (difficult talking). He was [AGE] years of age. Record review of Resident #2's care plan revised 11/22/23 indicated in part: Focus: Resident has frequent bladder and bowel incontinence. Is at risk for skin breakdown and infection. GOAL: Resident will have…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-15 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
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 review and revise the care plans for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #21) whose care plans were reviewed in that: The facility failed to ensure Resident #21's care plan was revised to accurately reflect current indwelling urinary foley catheter status that was removed on 02/12/2025. These failures could place residents at risk of receiving inadequate individualized care and services. Findings included: Record review of Resident #21's electronic admission record dated 05/13/2025 indicated he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of overactive bladder and Parkinson's disease. He was [AGE] years of age. Record review of Resident #21's care plan revised 12/18/24 indicated in part: Focus: Resident has foley catheter due to Benign prostatic hyperplasia with urinary retention. Will refer him to Urologist (doctor who focuses on the diagnosis and treatment of conditions related to the urinary [NAME]). GOAL: Resident will be/remain free…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-05-15 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — isolatedProcure 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 and prepare food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen and 1 of 2 Maintenance personnel (Ground Maintenance D) reviewed for kitchen sanitation in that: The facility failed to ensure Ground Maintenance D was wearing a moustache guard or a beard guard when he was in the kitchen and while staff was preparing uncovered food. These deficient practices could place residents who consumed meals and/or snacks from the kitchen at risk for food borne illness. The findings included: During an observation on 05/13/25 at 10:05 AM the facility Ground Maintenance Man D was observed in the kitchen while food was being prepared by the kitchen staff. Ground maintenance man D was observed to have a moustache and beard which was not covered. On the kitchen entrance door was a posted sign that indicated Notice hairnets and beard must be covered beyond this point. During an interview on 05/14/25 at 3:45 PM Ground Maintenance Man D said that he normally wore a face mask when he…
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 · F2024-04-04 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — widespreadMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary and comfortable environment for residents, staff and the public for 1 of 1 back patio reviewed for environment. The facility failed to keep a landscaped area on the back patio free of cat feces. This failure could lead to unsanitary conditions for residents and staff and possible parasitic infection. The findings included: Observation on 04/03/24 at 12:40 PM of back patio area/smoking area revealed approximately fifteen feet straight out from the door, was a large circle (approximately 10 feet in diameter) of rocks with a tree planted in the center. There was visible cat feces in several spots as well as multiple areas of dirt that had been dug out by an animal with claw marks visible in the dirt. The places that had been dug out were surrounding the base of the tree and all rocks had been removed from the area. There was a slight fecal odor noted to the area. In an interview on 04/03/24 at 01:09 PM the Maintenance Director stated that he had his guys go out 2-3 times a week…
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 · E2024-04-04 · tag F0637 — patternAssess the resident when there is a significant change in condition
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 complete a significant change MDS assessment within 14 days after a significant change of condition for 1 (Resident #11) of 28 residents reviewed for assessments, in that: The facility failed to complete a Significant Change MDS for Resident #11 within 14 days after the resident was admitted to hospice services. This failure could affect any resident who experienced a significant change in their condition requiring an MDS assessment and placed them at risk of not receiving needed services. Findings Included: Record Review of Resident #11's face sheet revealed an [AGE] year-old female with an admission date of 04/11/17. Resident #11 was admitted with diagnoses including atherosclerotic heart disease (thickening of arteries), dementia (progressive loss of intellectual functions), anxiety disorder (excessive worry), major depressive disorder (persistent depressed mood). Record Review of Resident #11's Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed a BIMs…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-04-04 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 3 (Resident #5, #6 and #26) of 5 residents reviewed for infection control. Staff failed to place Resident #5's and #26's SVN (a machine that mixes medicine and converts it into a mist.) masks in a bag when not in use. CNA A failed to wash or sanitize her hands after removing her gloves and putting on a clean pair of gloves while assisting Resident #6 with incontinent care. This failure could place residents at risk for cross contamination and the spread of infection. Finding include: RESIDENT #5 Record review of Resident #5's admission record dated 04/03/2024 indicated she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of dementia and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a chronic condition in which a patient's lungs are…
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 · D2024-04-04 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive, person-centered care plan for each resident that included measurable objectives and time frames to meet, attain, and/or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 1 of 28 residents (Residents #11) reviewed for care plans in that: The facility failed to ensure Resident #11's Care Plan addressed her hospice status. This failure could affect residents by placing them at risk of not receiving individualized care and services to meet their needs. The findings included: Record Review of Resident #11's face sheet revealed an [AGE] year-old female with an admission date of 04/11/17. Resident #11 was admitted with diagnoses including atherosclerotic heart disease (thickening of arteries), dementia (progressive loss of intellectual functions), anxiety disorder (excessive worry), major depressive disorder (persistent depressed mood). Record Review of Resident #11'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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-04 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure all controlled drugs and biologicals were stored in separately locked and permanently affixed compartments for 1 of 1 medication storage compartments (DON's office) reviewed for labeling/storage of drugs and biologicals. The facility failed to ensure stored discontinued controlled medications and biologicals were separately locked and in a permanently affixed compartment kept in the DON's office. This failure could place residents at risk of drug diversion and unauthorized access to medications. The findings included: During observation and interview on 4/4/24 at 1:25 PM with the ADON of the discontinued controlled medication cabinet in the DON's office it was noted that the cabinet only had one functioning lock. The medications were stored in the bottom drawer of a two-drawer filing cabinet that was bolted to the wall. The bottom drawer had an external pad lock on the left side of the bottom drawer and the built-in lock on the top right side to lock both drawers. The ADON stated that the built in lock was a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-02-23 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of residents, 1 of 2 Medication Carts and 1 of 1 Medication Storage Rooms reviewed for pharmacy services. - The facility failed to ensure Medication Cart #1 did not include an expired box of Hyoscyamine SL tablets, Ondansetron tablets, and AZO Bladder Control tablets. - The facility failed to ensure the Medication Storage Room did not contain an expired box of Thick and Easy Food and Beverage Thickener, and Promethazine HCL suppositories. These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving the therapeutic benefit of medications, adverse reactions to medications and worsening of symptoms of diseases. Findings Included: Medication Cart #1 In an observation 02/22/23 at 3:50PM, inventory of Medication Cart #1 with LVN A revealed: - a box of Hyoscyamine SL tablets 0.125mg, expired 11/05/22 - a box of Ondansetron tablets 4mg,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-02-23 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure dialysis service was provided consistently with professional standards of practice for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #25) reviewed for dialysis services. The facility failed to keep ongoing communication with the dialysis facility for Resident #25. The facility failed to have a contract with Resident #25's providing dialysis center prior to 02/23/23. This failure could place residents who received dialysis at risk for complications and not receiving proper care and treatment to meet their needs. Findings included: Review of Resident #25's admission Record, dated 2/21/23, revealed he was a [AGE] year-old male originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis including Stage 5 Kidney Disease and Dependence on Renal Dialysis. Review of Resident #25's Significant Change MDS, dated [DATE], revealed: He had a cognitive status exam score of 12 of 15 (indicating he was moderately cognitively impaired). He needed one person assistance for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
$111,168 in federal fines across 18 penalties.
- $4,893 — penalty dated 2024-02-20
- $4,893 — penalty dated 2024-02-12
- $14,679 — penalty dated 2024-01-22
- $4,893 — penalty dated 2024-01-08
- $4,545 — penalty dated 2024-01-02
- $13,635 — penalty dated 2023-12-11
- $4,545 — penalty dated 2023-11-20
- $4,545 — penalty dated 2023-11-13
- $4,545 — penalty dated 2023-11-06
- $4,545 — penalty dated 2023-10-30
- $4,545 — penalty dated 2023-10-23
- $4,545 — penalty dated 2023-10-17
- $4,545 — penalty dated 2023-10-10
- $4,545 — penalty dated 2023-10-02
- $4,545 — penalty dated 2023-09-25
- $4,545 — penalty dated 2023-09-18
- $4,545 — penalty dated 2023-09-11
- $13,635 — penalty dated 2023-08-21
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership Data Not Available |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
What families pay in TX
CMS lists this home as Medicaid-certified only — it can accept Medicaid for long-term care, but it is not Medicare-certified, so Medicare will not pay for a short rehabilitation (“skilled nursing”) stay here. 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 45F094. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-15, 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.