Seven Oaks Nursing & Rehabilitation
901 Seven Oaks Rd, Bonham, TX 75418 · For profit - Corporation · 108 certified beds · (903) 583-2191 Medicare & Medicaid certified
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 federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high number of inspection citations overall (30) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
- nursing-staff turnover (100%) runs well above the national median (45%)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 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 | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating held steady at 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 | 15.2% | 15.8% | 15.4% | typical |
| 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 | 0.0% | 0.3% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.7% | 0.8% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 2.9% | 2.4% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 6.1% | 3.3% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 10.1% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 7.1% | 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 | 3.8% | 3.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 11.5% | 13.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 0.0% | 9.6% | 17.1% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 88.0% | 79.4% | 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.
33.4% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 25 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.44 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 75% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 21% 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 | 33.4%CMS range 20.4–49.8 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.2%CMS range 6.3–14.9 | 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 | not 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 discharge | not 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 discharge | not 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 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 | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not 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 stay | 3.5% | 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 | 3.5% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 9.3%CMS range 5.3–13.7 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.24 | 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 108 beds and averages 41.2 residents a day — about 38% occupied, or roughly 67 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 2.81 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.37 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.54 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 2.52 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 2.93 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.41 to 0.29 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 100% is well above 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.
30 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 20 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-04-24 · 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 safety in the facility's only kitchen.The facility did not keep the following equipment and surfaces clean and free of debris in the kitchen in that: 1. The stove back splash wall was not clean2. Burners on the stove were caked with food items3. Ovens were dirty4. Deep fryer had crumbs and dried food items5. Fans in the walk-in cooler had dust / debris6. Air vents with visible build-up7. Wash rags stored beneath hand-washing sinkThe facility did not properly store prepared food items in the walk-in cooler in that:1. Two prepared bowls of pears on a tray in the walk-in cooler were left uncoveredThe facility did not properly store frozen food items in the stand-alone freezer in that:1. An open and undated food storage bag was observed in the stand-alone freezer These failures could place residents who ate food from the kitchen at risk of food-borne illness. Findings included: During an observation on 04/24/2026 at 9:10…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-04-24 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — isolatedMake 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 store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food safety in the facility's only kitchen in that: Two of four stove burners were non-functioning. This failure could place residents at risk of consuming contaminated food from a poor sanitation environmentThe findings were: Observation on 04/24/2026 at 9:10 a.m., revealed that two of four stove burners were corroded with soot and food debris and were non-functioning when DFN attempted to turn them on. The pilot lights were non-functioning and no gas odor was present. During an interview on 04/24/2026 at 9:15 a.m., the DFN stated that the two back burners do not always work and staff need to contact the Maintenance Director to re-light the pilot light. The DFN acknowledged that the burners were soiled and food debris was visible. The DFN stated that not having all of the burners working did not interfere too much with cooking. During an interview on 04/24/2026 at 10:55 a.m., the Maintenance Director stated that he was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-07-23 · tag F0806 — failed to honor food preferences — patternEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates resident allergies, intolerances, and preferences, as well as appealing options.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed ensure each resident receives and the facility provides food that accommodates residents' food preferences for 3 of 22 residents (Resident #29, Resident #15, and Resident #3) reviewed for food preferences and the accommodation of resident's meal choices.1.The facility did not honor Resident #29's preference for milk with her supper meals. 2.The facility failed to honor Resident #15's preferences for a bacon and toast for breakfast.3.The facility failed to provide condiments (jelly and butter) and bread for Resident #3 on 07/20/25. These failures could result in a decrease in resident choices, diminished interest in meals, and weight loss. Findings included: 1.Record review of Resident #29’s face sheet dated 07/23/25 indicated she was an [AGE] year-old female who had admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses diabetes mellitus (disease causing too much sugar in the blood stream), high blood pressure, depressive disorder, 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 · D2025-07-23 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — isolatedHonor the resident's right to voice grievances without discrimination or reprisal and the facility must establish a grievance policy and make prompt efforts to resolve grievances.
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 resident had the right to and the facility made prompts efforts to resolve grievances the resident may have for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #3) reviewed for grievances. The facility failed to ensure a grievance was filed and Resident #3 was appropriately apprised of progress toward resolution when Resident #3's green pants were not returned from the laundry. This failure could place residents at risk for grievances not being addressed or resolvedFindings include:Record review of Resident #3's face sheet, dated 07/23/25, reflected Resident #3 was a [AGE] year-old female readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis which included Alzheimer's (progressive disease that destroys memory and other important mental functions). Record review of Resident #3's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 06/05/25, reflected Resident #3 made herself understood, and understood others. Resident #3's BIMS score was 14, which reflected her cognition was intact.…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-07-23 · tag F0645 — isolatedPASARR screening for Mental disorders or Intellectual Disabilities
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 Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Level I assessment accurately reflected the resident's status for 2 of 4 residents (Resident #8 and Resident #9) reviewed for PASRR. 1. The facility failed to complete the PASRR level 1 screening for Resident #8 who had a diagnosis of Bipolar with depression and psychotic disorder (where the individual is experiencing a depressive episode that is both severe and includes psychotic symptoms) on admission on [DATE]. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #9 had a new PASRR level 1 screening completed when she had a new diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder (a chronic brain disorder that significantly impacts a person's thoughts, feelings, and behavior) dated 04/05/22. These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving the needed PASRR services to meet their individual needs and could result in a decreased quality of life. Findings included: 1.Record review of Resident #8's face…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-07-23 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — isolatedEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident received and the facility provided food and drink that was palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature for 1 of 1 breakfast meals reviewed for dietary services. The facility failed to serve an appetizing bowl of oatmeal. The oatmeal served was thick, porous texture that resembled cornbread during the breakfast meal on 07/22/25. This failure could place residents at risk of weight loss, altered nutritional status, and a diminished quality of life.Findings include:During an interview and observation on 07/22/25 at 8:26 a.m., the state surveyor asked Resident #12 how his breakfast was, Resident #12 stated, you're able to cut the oatmeal with his knife. The state surveyor observed a bowl of oatmeal that was thick, porous texture that resembled cornbread. During an observation on 07/22/25 at 8:30 a.m., revealed Resident #13 was sitting in her recliner, eating her breakfast. She stated the oatmeal did not look like oatmeal; it looked hard, so she did not even touch it. During…
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 · D2025-07-23 · tag F0805 — failed to prepare food in a form residents can eat — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident received food prepared in a form to meet their individual needs for 4 of 4 residents (Residents #13, #27, #28, and #12) reviewed for the lunch menu on 07/21/25. The facility failed to ensure Residents #13, #27, #28, and #12 was served the correct portion of food on 07/23/25. These failures could place residents at risk of inadequate nutrition. Findings included: 1.Record review of Resident #13's face sheet, dated 07/23/25, indicated she was an [AGE] year-old female, admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included dementia (loss of memory, language, problem-solving and other thinking abilities that are severe enough to interfere with daily life), diabetes ( a chronic illness where the body either doesn't produce enough insulin or can't effectively use the insulin it produces, leading to high blood sugar levels), and depression (a serious mood disorder that affects how you think, feel, and behave). 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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-07-23 · tag F0808 — failed to follow doctor-ordered diets — isolatedEnsure therapeutic diets are prescribed by the attending physician and may be delegated to a registered or licensed dietitian, to the extent allowed by State law.
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 food was prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs and as prescribed by the physician for 2 of 15 residents (Residents #12 and #28) reviewed for therapeutic diets. 1. The facility did not ensure Resident #12 was given double protein portion as ordered by the physician. 2. The facility did not ensure Resident #28 was given large protein portions as ordered by the physician on 07/21/25 during the lunch service. This failure could place residents at risk for poor intake, weight loss, unmet nutritional needs, and a loss of dignity.Findings Included: 1. Record review of Resident #12’s face sheet, dated 07/23/25, reflected Resident #12 was a [AGE] year-old male, readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis which included absence of right leg below knee. Record review of Resident #12’s quarterly MDS assessment, dated 06/18/25, reflected Resident #12 made himself understood, and understood others. Resident #12’s 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 · Dcited before2025-07-23 · 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, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 ice machine reviewed for kitchen sanitation. The facility failed to ensure the ice machine, stored in the kitchen area, was free from a pink like substances on it and black like substance in the scoop container on 07/21/25. This failure could place residents at risk for foodborne illness. Findings included: During an observation on 07/21/25 at 9:07 a.m., revealed the ice scoop located in the main area of the kitchen had a pink like film on it. The ice container that held the ice scoop had some black and brown film inside of it. During an observation and interview on 07/21/25 at 9:10 a.m., the Director of Food and Nutrition came out of the kitchen and observed the ice scoop had some pink like substance on the ice scoop and the ice scoop holder had some black and brown film in the bottom of it. She said the kitchen staff were responsible for cleaning the ice scoop and holder. She said she was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-07-19 · 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 interview and record review the facility failed to immediately notify, consistent with his or her authority, the resident representative(s) when there was a need to alter treatment significantly for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for notification of changes. The facility failed to notify Resident #1's responsible party of her doppler study results of the lower extremities (noninvasive test that can be used to measure the blood flow through the major blood vessels in the legs), gangrene (localized death and decomposition of body tissue, resulting from either obstructed circulation or bacterial infection) to the right lower extremity, or the need for consultation with a vascular surgeon. This failure could place residents at risk of their responsible parties not being notified or involved in their plan of care. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet indicated she was [AGE] years old and re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including, Huntington's disease…
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.
Show the remaining 20 citations
- Potential for harm · E2024-06-18 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — patternDevelop 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 interview and record review the facility failed to facilitate resident and family participation in the care planning process for 4 of 15 residents (Resident #15, Resident #17, Resident #21, and Resident #28) reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to notify and invite Resident # 17's responsible party to care plan meetings. The facility failed to ensure Resident # 15, Resident #21, Resident #28 and their representatives were invited to their care plan meetings. These failures could place residents at risk of not having needs met by depriving them the opportunity to participate in the decision making regarding their care. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #15's face sheet dated 06/24/24 indicated she was a [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (disease causing restricted airflow and breathing problems), major depression (mood disorder that causes persistent sadness and loss of interest), heart failure (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 · Ecited before2024-06-18 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for dietary services, in that: 1) The facility failed to label and date all food items. 2) Dietary staff failed to dispose of expired foods items. 3) Dietary Staff failed to effectively reseal, label and date frozen food items. 4) Dietary staff failed to store thawed raw meat below ready to eat foods. These failures could place residents at risk for food contamination and foodborne illness. The findings included: During observations with [NAME] B on 06/16/24 at 10:05 am, the following observations were made in the kitchen walk-in refrigerator (1 of 1): - (1) large bowl of chicken salad with no preparation (prep) date and no use by date; located underneath 10 pounds of thawed ground beef. - (1) prepared bagged ham sandwich with no prep date and no expiration date; located underneath 10 pounds of ground…
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 · D2024-06-18 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure 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 interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure assessments accurately reflected the resident status for 1 of 15 residents (Resident #34) reviewed for MDS assessment accuracy. The facility failed to ensure Resident #34's anticoagulant (blood thinner) use was accurately coded on his quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE]. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving care and services to meet their needs. Findings included: Record review of Resident #34's face sheet dated 06/18/24, indicated a [AGE] year-old male who admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident #34 had diagnoses of psychosis (collection of symptoms that affect the mind, where there has been some loss of contact with reality), intermittent explosive disorder (impulsive, aggressive, violent behavior or angry verbal outburst), recurrent severe major depression (mood disorder that causes persistent sadness and loss of interest), chronic kidney disease (a gradual loss of kidney function that…
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 · D2024-06-18 · 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 interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure individuals with mental health disorders were provided an accurate Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) Screenings for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #34) reviewed for PASRR. The facility failed to refer Resident #34 for PASRR review following new mental illness diagnosis of severe major depression (mood disorder that causes persistent sadness and loss of interest) on 07/17/23. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving needed assessments (PASRR Evaluation), individualized care, and specialized services to meet their needs. Findings included: Record review of Resident #34's face sheet dated 06/18/24, indicated a [AGE] year-old male who admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident #34 had diagnoses of psychosis (collection of symptoms that affect the mind, where there has been some loss of contact with reality), intermittent explosive disorder (impulsive, aggressive, violent behavior or angry…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-06-18 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed store all drugs and biologicals in locked compartments under proper temperature controls and permit only authorized personnel to have access to the keys for 1 of 3 medication carts (nurse medication cart) reviewed for medication storage. LVN C failed to ensure the facility nurse medication cart was locked when it was left unattended when she went in Resident #31's room to check her blood sugar for insulin administration. This failure could place residents at risk of injury and drug diversion. Findings included: During an observation and interview on 06/17/24 at 04:25 PM LVN C prepared supplies to check Resident #31's blood sugar, went into Resident #31's room, closed the door, and left the nurse medication cart unlocked and unsupervised. When LVN C returned to the cart she said she was not supposed to have left the medication cart unlocked while being unsupervised. She said the failure placed a risk for residents or staff to get into the cart and take medications. During an interview on 06/18/24 at 03:58 PM the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-06-18 · tag F0849 — isolatedArrange for the provision of hospice services or assist the resident in transferring to a facility that will arrange for the provision of hospice 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 collaborate with hospice representatives and coordinate the hospice care planning process for each resident receiving hospice services, to ensure quality of care for the resident, ensuring communication with the hospice medical director, the resident's attending physician, and others participating in the provision of care for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #'s 34 and 27) reviewed for hospice services. The facility failed to obtain Resident #34's and Resident #27's most recent updated hospice plan of care. This deficient practice could place residents who receive hospice services at-risk of receiving inadequate end-of-life care due to a lack of documentation, coordination of care and communication of resident needs. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #34's face sheet dated 06/18/24, indicated a [AGE] year-old male who admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident #34 had diagnoses of psychosis (collection of symptoms…
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 · E2023-04-18 · tag F0578 — failed to honor advance directives / code status — patternHonor the resident's right to request, refuse, and/or discontinue treatment, to participate in or refuse to participate in experimental research, and to formulate an advance directive.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure medical records were maintained in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices on each resident and accurately documented for 3 of 15 residents (Resident's #6, #7, and #16) reviewed for accuracy of medical records. 1. The facility did not ensure Resident #16's OOH-DNR was signed at the bottom by the witnesses. 2. The facility did not ensure Resident #6's signed her OOH-DNR. 3. The facility failed to ensure Resident #7's OOH-DNR had a license number, printed name, and date for the physician's statement. These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving care and services to meet their needs. The findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #16's face sheet, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #16 was an [AGE] year-old male who re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (when your heartbeat returns to normal within 7 days, on its own or with treatment) and unspecified dementia…
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 · E2023-04-18 · tag F0636 — patternAssess 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 interviews and record review, the facility failed to complete a comprehensive resident-centered assessment of each resident's cognitive, medical, and functional capacity in a timely manner for 4 of 15 residents (Resident's #297, #147, #4, and #7) reviewed for comprehensive assessment and timing. 1. The facility did not ensure Resident #297's admission MDS assessment was completed within 14 days of admission. 2. The facility failed to complete Resident #147's admission MDS assessment with 14 days of admission. 3. The facility failed to complete an admission MDS assessment after Resident #4 was discharged returned not anticipated and readmitted to the facility. 4. The facility failed to complete Resident #7's admission MDS assessment within 14 days of admission. These failures could place residents at risk of not having their needs identified and met. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #297's order summary report, dated 04/18/2023, indicated Resident #297 was a [AGE] year-old female,…
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 before2023-04-18 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — patternEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide food that was palatable and served at an appetizing temperature for 2 of 15 residents (Resident #4 and Resident #19) and 1 of 1 meal (lunch meal) reviewed for dietary services. The facility failed to provide palatable food served at an appetizing temperature or taste to residents who complained the food was not hot and did not taste good. The facility failed to ensure [NAME] G followed the recipe for pureeing the garlic cheese biscuits for four residents on puree diet. These failures could place residents who ate food from the kitchen at risk of weight loss, altered nutritional status, and diminished quality of life. Findings included: 1. During an observation and interview on 04/17/2023 starting at 12:58 PM, a lunch tray was sampled by the Dietary Manager and five surveyors. The sample tray consisted of Meat loaf, scallop potatoes, green beans, garlic cheese biscuit, and frosted vanilla cake. The meat loaf needed to be warmer…
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 before2023-04-18 · 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 safety in the facility's only kitchen. The facility failed to ensure: 1.Food items were dated and labeled. 2. Hair restraints were worn appropriately by dietary staff. 3. The deep fryer was free of grease build up. These failures could place residents at risk for foodborne illness. Findings include: During an observation in the freezers and refrigerator on 4/16/23 starting at 9:03 AM, revealed a plastic bag with no label or date that was identified by [NAME] G, as onions and bell peppers, 1 container of Italian sausage undated with thick ice buildup, 1 frozen uncovered opened pitcher of lemonade identified by [NAME] G that was not labeled or dated, 1 box beef chill and bean red burritos opened not secured in freezer, 1 box of onion rings undated without received date or open date, 1 box health vanilla shakes undated without received date or open date, 1 box collard greens undated without received date or open date, 1…
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 · D2023-04-18 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity and provide care in a manner that promoted maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life for 2 of 5 residents (Resident #9, and #18) reviewed for resident rights. The facility did not ensure CNA E treated residents with dignity and respect by referring to them as feeders. This failure could place residents at an increased risk of embarrassment, isolation, and diminished quality of life. Findings included: During a dining observation on 04/17/2023 at 12:14 p.m., CNA E stated to the Dietary Manager we have feeders on both halls. CNA E was approximately 5 feet from dining room tables where residents were sitting. During an observation and interview on 04/17/2023 at 12:58 p.m., CNA E stated to NA H these two trays are feeders. When asked who she was referring to, CNA E stated Residents #9 and #18. CNA E was approximately 3 feet from Resident #9's door. During an interview on 04/17/2023 at 3:15 p.m., Resident #9 was non-interview able as evidenced 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.
- Potential for harm · D2023-04-18 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
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, interviews, and record review the facility failed to respect the right to personal privacy for 1 of 1 nurses' station reviewed for privacy. The facility failed to ensure RN L communicated with the hospice company in a private and confidential manner. This failure could place residents at risk of diminished quality of life, loss of dignity and self-worth. The findings included: During an observation on 04/16/2023 at 9:57 AM, RN L was sitting at the nurses' station attempting to speak with the hospice company. RN L had her telephone on speaker phone and RN L spoke loudly regarding the status of two hospice residents. The surveyor was standing down the hallway near room [ROOM NUMBER], approximately 40 feet from the nurses' station, and was able to overhear the phone conversation. Several residents and staff members walked by the nurses' station during the conversation. RN L stated I just wanted to give you and update on [Resident #8], her time is getting close, and her family is all here. Her…
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 · D2023-04-18 · 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 observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights, that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment for 1 of 15 residents (Resident #4) reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to develop and implement a care plan for Resident #4's edema (swelling) to both legs. This failure could place residents at risk of not having individual needs met and a decreased quality of life. Findings included: Record review of Resident #4's face sheet, dated 04/18/2023, revealed an [AGE] year-old male initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included heart failure (the heart muscle does not pump blood as well as it should to meet the body's needs for blood and oxygen), localized edema (fluid trapped…
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 · D2023-04-18 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide 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 observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for 1 of 15 (Resident #4) residents reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed to provide wound care for Resident #4 per the physician's orders. This failure could place residents of risk for not receiving appropriate care and treatment. Findings included: Record review of Resident #4's face sheet, dated 04/18/2023, revealed an [AGE] year-old male initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included heart failure (the heart muscle does not pump blood as well as it should to meet the body's needs for blood and oxygen), localized edema (fluid trapped in the body's tissues), and chronic kidney disease, stage 3 (kidneys have mild to moderate damage and they are less able to filter waste and fluid out of the blood). Record review of the MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed…
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 · D2023-04-18 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that respiratory care was provided consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 16 residents reviewed for respiratory care. (Resident #42). The facility failed to properly store Resident #42's respiratory equipment. The facility failed to change Resident #42's HHN equipment weekly per policy. These failures could place residents at risk of respiratory infections. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #42's face sheet dated 4/16/23 revealed he was a [AGE] year-old male, who admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #42 had diagnoses of emphysema (lung disease that damages lung tissue and causes difficulty or discomfort in breathing) and cerebral infarction (caused from disruption of blood flow to the brain due problems with the blood vessels that supply the brain, also known as a stroke). Record review of Resident #42's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed he had a BIMS of 13, which indicated he was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-04-18 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure all drugs were stored in a locked compartment and only accessible by authorized personnel for 1 of 16 residents (Resident #42) reviewed for medication storage. 1. The facility failed to keep medication being administered under the direct observation of the person administering medications. Resident #42 had 3 packages (each contained 1 dose vial) of Ipratropium-Albuterol Solution 0.5-2.5 mg in 3 ml (used to open airways to make breathing easier) on top of his bedside table. These failures could place residents at risk for health complications and not receiving the intended therapeutic benefit of their medication. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #42's face sheet dated 4/16/23 revealed he was a [AGE] year-old male, who admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #42 had diagnoses of emphysema (lung disease that damages lung tissue and causes difficulty or discomfort in breathing) and cerebral infarction (caused from…
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 · D2023-04-18 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on 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 and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 1 of 6 staff (CNA K) reviewed for infection control. The facility failed to ensure CNA K changed gloves and performed hand hygiene while providing incontinent care to Resident #2. This failure could place residents and staff at risk for cross-contamination and the spread of infection. Findings included: During an observation of incontinent care on 04/16/2023 starting at 3:20 PM, CNA K had finished incontinent care on Resident #15. CNA K took the trash bag containing Resident #15's dirty adult brief and wipes over to Resident #2's bedside and placed it on the floor. CNA K put on gloves. CNA K did not perform hand hygiene prior to putting on gloves. CNA K pulled off Resident #2's covers, unsecured her adult brief and pulled it down from the front. CNA K then wiped Resident #2's front peri area, and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-04-18 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — isolatedMake 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, clean, and comfortable homelike environment for 1 of 4 halls (Hall 2) reviewed for environment. The facility did not ensure the floor and walls, on Hall 2, were cleaned and free of marks or debris. The facility did not ensure the floor, on Hall 2, was repaired. These failures could place the resident at risk for decreased quality of life and infection due to unsanitary conditions. The findings included: During an observation on 04/16/2023 between 9:00 AM - 10:26 AM, there was missing flooring in the hallway entrance to Hall 2. The floors were dirty with numerous crumbs and 4 white, quarter-sized, dried spots throughout the hallway. There was a dead beetle bug at the exit door. There were thick layers of dust in the corners of the hallway. There were black streaks along the painted drywall the length of the hallway, approximately 75 - 100 feet. During an observation on 04/16/2023 between 4:11 PM - 4:22 PM, there was missing flooring in the hallway entrance to Hall 2. The floors were dirty with…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- No harm found · B2025-07-23 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as was possible for 2 of 2 residents (Residents #12 and #21) reviewed for accidents and hazards.1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #12 did not have an electric razor and shaving gel on his bedside table on 07/21/25, 07/22/25 and 07/23/25.2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #21 did not have razors in his bathroom on 07/21/25, 07/22/25 and 07/23/25.These failures could place residents at risk of harm or injury and contribute to avoidable accidents and a decline in healthFindings include: 1. Record review of Resident #12’s face sheet, dated 07/23/25, reflected Resident #12 was a [AGE] year-old male, readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis which included absence of right leg below knee. Record review of Resident #12’s quarterly MDS assessment, dated 06/18/25, reflected Resident #12 made himself understood and understood others. Resident #12’s 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.
- No harm found · C2023-04-18 · tag F0640 — widespreadEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of 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 an encoded, accurate, and complete MDS discharge assessment was electronically completed and transmitted to the CMS System within 14 days after completion for 1 of 1 resident (Resident #11) reviewed for discharge MDS assessments. The facility did not ensure Resident #11's discharge MDS assessment was completed and transmitted within 14 days of completion. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of not having records completed and submitted in a timely manner as required. Findings include: Record review of Resident #11's order summary report, dated 04/18/2023, indicated Resident #11 was a [AGE] year-old female, originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis which included bipolar (a disorder associated with episodes of mood swings ranging from depression lows to manic highs), essential hypertension (high blood pressure), and atrial fibrillation (irregular, often rapid heart rate). Record review of a progress note…
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
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to CREATIVE SOLUTIONS IN HEALTHCARE — 149 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 →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 2.1 | +1.9 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.7 | +1.3 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 1.1 | -0.1 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 3.2 | +1.8 vs chain |
The other 148 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.1★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 148; lowest-rated first.
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 / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| HUGGINS, LINDA | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 01/01/2021 |
| CREATIVE SOLUTIONS IN HEALTHCARE INC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/2021 |
| BLAKE, GARY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/2021 |
| BLAKE, MALISA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 01/01/2021 |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 73% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 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 675271. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-07-23, 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.