Crestview Retirement Community
2505 E Villa Maria Rd, Bryan, TX 77802 · Non profit - Corporation · 48 certified beds · (979) 776-4778 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — 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 payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (10% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jun 2026
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
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 | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 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 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 5 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating improved from 3 to 5 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 7.2% | 15.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 2.8% | 3.0% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.3% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 0.8% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 4.2% | 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 | 3.5% | 3.3% | 3.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 15.6% | 14.0% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 8.3% | 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 | 4.4% | 3.8% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 26.1% | 13.4% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 4.0% | 9.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.7% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 46.0% | 88.0% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 26.3% | 25.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 14.9% | 12.3% | 12.0% | worse |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
62.2% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 133 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 78.4% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 37 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.57 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 86% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 8% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 62.2%CMS range 54.5–67.8 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.9%CMS range 8.3–16.3 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 78.4% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 73.0% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 62.2% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 90.7% | 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 | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 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 | 8.2%CMS range 4.6–14.9 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.12 | 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 48 beds and averages 44.4 residents a day — about 92% occupied, or roughly 4 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.29 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.39 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.60 is at or above the 2.45-hour aide benchmark. What federal law does require today is unchanged: “sufficient” nursing staff for residents’ needs and an RN on duty at least 8 consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week (42 CFR 483.35). Those are judged by inspectors on site, not by these averages, so read this comparison alongside the inspection record rather than as a pass/fail.
Weekend coverage: total nurse staffing is 3.53 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.59 on weekdays — 23% thinner on weekends — a notable drop. RN hours go from 0.47 to 0.20 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 10% is below the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
10 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2023-06-02 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervisions and assistive devices for 1 of 8 Residents (Resident #17) reviewed for accidents and hazards, in that: Facility failed to adequately supervise and ensure staff checked the coffee temperature prior to serving to residents which resulted in Resident #17 spilling a pot of coffee over his lap resulting in 1st and 2nd degree burns to his bilateral thighs and down his legs to his ankles. On 05/31/2023 at 2:40 PM an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified. While the IJ was removed on 06/02/2023, the facility remained out of compliance at a severity level of actual harm and a scope of isolated harm due to the facility continuing to monitor the implementation and effectiveness of their Plan of Removal. This failure could place residents at risk of accidents due to lack of supervision. Findings included: Review of Resident #17's Face Sheet, and health record information dated 06/02/2023 reflected…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-06-24 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation for one of six residents (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse and neglect. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was free from abuse and neglect on 05/03/2026 when CNA A verbally abused Resident #1 and neglected to give care when Resident #1 requested assistance to the bathroom. This failure placed residents at risk of abuse, neglect, trauma, and psychosocial harm.Findings included: Review of Resident #1's face sheet reflected an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with the following diagnoses: unspecified dementia, moderate, without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance or anxiety (A group of symptoms that affects memory, thinking and interferes with daily life but the exact cause is not clearly identified. It falls between mild and severe dementia in…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-06-24 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure, in accordance with State and Federal laws, all drugs and biologicals were stored in locked compartments under proper temperature controls and permit only authorized personnel to have access to the keys to 1 of 2 medication carts (Medication Cart #1) reviewed for drug storage and labeling.The facility failed to ensure Medication Cart #1, was locked, medications secured, and not accessible to other staff, residents, or visitors.This failure could place residents at risk of having unauthorized access to medications, decreased effectiveness of medication, or missing medications. Findings included:During an observation on the left side at the end of 100 hall on 06/21/2026 at 9:18 a.m., revealed Medication Cart #1 was unlocked. Med Aide B exited a room at approximately 9:23 a.m. on 100 hall and walked to Medication Cart #1. No nursing staff were observed near Medication Cart #1 on 06/21/2026 at 9:18 a.m.During an interview with Med- Aide B on 06/24/2026 at 9:30 a.m., she stated she was trained on medication…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-08-07 · tag F0700 — patternTry different approaches before using a bed rail. If a bed rail is needed, the facility must (1) assess a resident for safety risk; (2) review these risks and benefits with the resident/representative; (3) get informed consent; and (4) Correctly install and maintain the bed rail.
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 assess the resident for risk of entrapment from bed rails prior to installation and review the risks and benefits of bed rails with the resident or resident representative and obtain informed consent prior to installation for 6 of 12 (Residents #1, #5, #6, #7, #20 and #40) residents reviewed for bed rails. The facility failed to assess Residents #1, #5, #6, #7, #20 and #40 for entrapment from bed rails or obtain documentation of informed consent before using bed rails on the residents' beds. This failure could place residents at risk of injury from entrapment. Findings include: 1. Record review of Resident #1's, undated, face sheet reflected an [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included dementia, lack of coordination, muscle weakness, fatigue (extreme tiredness), cognitive communication deficit (difficulty communicating due to cognitive impairment), difficulty in walking, attention 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 · Ecited before2025-08-07 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 3 kitchens (main kitchen) reviewed for food safety. 1. The facility failed to ensure the ED and DRM wore a hair restraint while in the kitchen on 08/05/25. 2. The facility failed to ensure the DM wore gloves while preparing prepared ham sandwiches in the kitchen. These failures could place residents at risk of food-borne illness. Findings include: 1. Observation on 08/05/25 at 09:20 AM revealed the ED, who had short hair, and the DRM, who had shoulder length hair, standing in the kitchen and speaking to the cooks. Neither of them wore a hairnet or hair restraint. They both walked out of the kitchen and the DRM returned less than a minute later with a hairnet on. During an interview on 08/05/25 at 09:27 AM, the DRM stated she was required to wear a hairnet in the kitchen. She stated she did not know why she was in the kitchen not wearing one. She stated she was in a hurry and forgot to apply 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 · E2024-07-25 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — patternEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the medication error rate was not five percent or greater when the facility had a medication error rate of 36.36% based on 16 errors of 44 opportunities, which involved 2 of 5 residents (Resident #8 and Resident #10) observed during medication administration. 1. The facility failed to hold Resident #10's medication due to low heart rate. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #8's extended release (ER) medications were not crushed and the resident received the full dose of her medications. These failures could place residents at risk of unwanted side effects and not receiving therapeutic dosage of medications. Findings include: 1.Review of Resident #10's face sheet reflected an [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), thrombocytopenia (low platelet levels), bradycardia (heart rate lower than 60 beats per minute), hypertension (elevated blood pressure) 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 · E2024-07-25 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — patternEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that its residents were free of any significant medication errors for one (Resident #8) of five residents reviewed for significant medication errors. The facility failed to ensure Resident #8's extended release (ER) medications, including Glipizide 2.5mg ER, Bupropion 300mg ER, and Metoprolol Succinate 50mg ER were not crushed prior to administration and that Resident # 8 received the full dose of her medications. These failures could place residents at risk of unwanted side effects, not receiving therapeutic dosage of medications, and ineffective disease management. Findings include: Review of Resident #8's Face Sheet reflected a [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of type 2 diabetes (condition in which the body has trouble regulating blood sugar), atrial fibrillation (irregular, often very rapid heart rhythm), history of cerebral infarction (stroke), speech and language deficits, and dementia (a group of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-07-25 · 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 under sanitary conditions in the facility's only kitchen reviewed for sanitation. The facility failed to discard of food products in the walk-in freezer that were past their facility indicated use by date. The facility failed to label and date food products in the walk-in freezer. The facility failed to clean their industrial can opener. These failures could place residents at risk of cross contamination, loss of nutritional value, and foodborne illness. Findings included: Observation on 07/23/2024 at 8:29 AM, of the facility's walk-in freezer revealed the following food products that were past their displayed use by date or were not labeled: 1 metal tray covered with plastic wrap that was labeled breaded cod, opened 07/14/24 at 5:55 PM and discard 07/17/24 at 5:55 PM. 1 metal tray labeled Fish, Salmon 6oz, opened 06/27/24 at 5:55 PM and discard 07/17/24 at 5:55 PM, which contained 38 individually wrapped pieces of fish. 1 plastic bag labeled Fish, Salmon Fillet Raw…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2023-06-02 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food under sanitary conditions in one of one walk in refrigerator. The facility failed to label and date leftover, opened foods in the walk-in refrigerator in the kitchen. This failure could place the residents at risk of foodborne illness and decreased quality of life. Findings included: In an observation on 05/30/2023 at 10:05 AM in the main kitchen in the walk-in refrigerator revealed an uncovered rolling shelve with meat on metal trays not covered or dated; one full metal tray of barbeque chicken; one full metal tray of baked chicken, on metal tray with a pork tenderloin not covered, dated, or labeled. Further observation revealed a rolling shelve with metal trays with 4 pies on a rack not covered, dated, or labeled. In an interview on 05/30/2023 at 10:08 AM the Chef stated the chicken in the walk-in refrigerator was from the night before and the pork loin was cooked on 05/30/2023 and was cooling to be cut. The Chef stated the meat should be covered, dated, 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 · D2023-06-02 · tag F0688 — failed to keep residents mobile / prevent decline — isolatedProvide appropriate care for a resident to maintain and/or improve range of motion (ROM), limited ROM and/or mobility, unless a decline is for a medical reason.
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 1of 16 residents reviewed with limited range of motion (Resident #2), received appropriate treatment and services to prevent a decline in range of motion. The facility failed to ensure Resident #2 had interventions in place for her right- and left-hand contracture (A permanent tightening of the muscles, tendons, skin, and surrounding tissues that causes the joints to shorten and stiffen and a decrease in ROM) to prevent further decline of the range of motion in her right and left hand. This deficient practice placed residents with contractures at risk for decrease in mobility, range of motion, and contribute to worsening of contractures. Findings Include: Review of Resident #2's Face Sheet dated 06/02/2023 reflected an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the following diagnoses Multiple Sclerosis (A disease that affects central nervous system. The immune system attacks the myelin, the protective layer…
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 METHODIST RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES — 6 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 | 5 of 5 | 4.7 | +0.3 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 5 of 5 | 4.5 | +0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 4 of 5 | 4.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 4.2 | +0.8 vs chain |
The other 5 homes this chain runs (chain average 4.7★, per CMS)
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| METHODIST RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 02/22/2008 |
| MRC CRESTVIEW | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 04/23/2014 |
| THE ALDERSGATE TRUST | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 12/17/2004 |
| TRUIST BANK | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST | — | since 12/06/2019 |
| UMB BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION | Organization | 5% OR GREATER MORTGAGE INTEREST | — | since 09/01/2016 |
| BAGGETT, ALYCE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2013 |
| BESSER, ALICIA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2024 |
| BROWN, ALAN | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 04/13/2020 |
| BUNCH, JAMES | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 08/13/2020 |
| CONGER, DALE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 02/21/2020 |
| GILTS, KIP | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2020 |
| KING, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 01/01/2018 |
| KOERNER, WILLIAM | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 02/21/2020 |
| MALONE-WARDLEY, ROMONICA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2023 |
| MORGAN, RICHARD | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2017 |
| SIMMONS, ED | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2024 |
| WATSON, FRANKIE | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 11/12/2021 |
| WILLIAMSON, BILLY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2004 |
| WOODWARD, WALTER | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 07/01/2024 |
| CURRIE, MATTHEW | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 08/21/2025 |
| STEPHENS, DONALD | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/01/2015 |
| ADAMS, MICHAEL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/01/2007 |
| PARTIN, TODD | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 04/01/2018 |
| SIMS, DAVID | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/02/2021 |
| THOMAS, AMY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/10/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 28 rows in the source record cover these 25 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
5 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $916K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
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 675979. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-08-07, 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.