Ridgeview Rehabilitation And Skilled Nursing
206 Walls Dr, Cleburne, TX 76033 · Government - Hospital district · 134 certified beds · (817) 645-0668 Medicare & Medicaid certified
On the public record, this home looks stronger than most — but visit before you decide.
- 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 (20) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 3 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 4 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 | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 3 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 | 12.1% | 15.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.0% | 3.0% | 5.4% | worse |
| 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 | 2.6% | 2.4% | 6.5% | typical for the 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 | 2.2% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 25.5% | 14.0% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 15.9% | 18.0% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.0% | 3.8% | 4.7% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 17.8% | 13.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 7.6% | 9.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.3% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.9% | 88.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 20.1% | 25.7% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 16.3% | 12.3% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.01 | 2.17 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 3.16 | 2.06 | 1.80 | worse |
* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
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.
56.8% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 113 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 48.8% 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 82 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 0.46 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 76% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 10% 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 | 56.8%CMS range 49.5–67.2 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 11.6%CMS range 7.5–16.1 | 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 | 48.8% | 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 | 48.8% | 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 | 45.1% | 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 | 93.4% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 100.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 95.7% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 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 | 6.2%CMS range 3.6–10.0 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.22 | 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 134 beds and averages 95.4 residents a day — about 71% occupied, or roughly 39 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.67 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.63 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.02 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 3.17 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.88 on weekdays — 18% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.68 to 0.50 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 52% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
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.
20 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 10 are one tap away and print in full.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-12-11 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each 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 observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received services in the facility with reasonable accommodations of resident's needs and preferences except when to do so would endanger the health and safety of the resident or other residents for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #49) reviewed for resident rights.The facility failed to ensure Resident's #49's call light was within reach on 12/09/25.This failure could place residents at risk of needs not being met. Findings included: Record Review of Resident #49's face sheet dated 12/11/25 reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease (a neurodegenerative disease that usually starts slowly and progressively worsens), anxiety (intense, excessive, and persistent worry and fear about everyday situations), insomnia (a common sleep disorder marked by persistent difficulty falling asleep, staying asleep, or getting quality rest, leading to daytime fatigue,…
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 · D2025-12-11 · 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 observation, interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure resident assessments accurately reflected the resident's status for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #2) reviewed for accuracy of assessments.The facility failed to ensure Resident #2's MDS assessment dated [DATE] was accurately coded for the use and indication of high-risk medications, specifically an antiplatelet medication.This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving the appropriate care, treatment, and services due to inaccurate assessments.Record review of Resident #2's admission record printed on 12/11/2025, reflected a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Hypotension (low blood pressure), dehydration (lost fluids not being replaced), weakness, memory deficit following Cerebral Infarction (problems with memory and thinking after a stroke), and other Cerebral Infarction due to Occlusion or Stenosis of Small Artery (type of stroke caused by blockage of the small arteries in 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 · Dcited before2025-12-11 · 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 reviews, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident rights, that included measurable objectives and time frames to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for 1 (Residents #5) of 8 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to ensure Resident #5's nutritional status and needs, including orders for a puree diet and orders for thickened liquids, were addressed in the comprehensive care plan.This failure could place the resident at risk of not receiving necessary care or receiving incorrect care and services related to their identified needs to maintain or reach their highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial wellbeing.Record review of Resident #5's admission record printed on 12/11/2025 reflected an [AGE] year-old male admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses included: other acute…
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 · D2025-12-11 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that drugs and biologicals used in the facility were stored properly for 1 of 1 medication storage room reviewed for drug storage. The facility failed to ensure expired lab supplies and needles used for biologicals were removed from the medication storage room. This failure could place residents at risk for inaccurate diagnoses from defective labs, ineffective treatments and unnecessary infections.Findings include: Observation on [DATE] at 2:58 PM of the Medication Storage room revealed: 5 Culture Swabs expired [DATE] 2 Blue Top Lab Tubes expired [DATE] 1 Lab Transport Tube expired [DATE] 4 Gold Top Lab Tubes expired [DATE] 4 Red Top Lab Tubes expired [DATE] 10 Precision Glide Needles expired [DATE] In an interview on [DATE] at 9:33 AM RN A stated the policy for expired medication supplies was to get rid of them. She stated that it was important not to use expired supplies for treatments and medications because it may not be safe.…
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 · D2025-12-11 · 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, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to prepare food by methods that conserve nutritive value and flavor for pureed diets for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for food and nutrition services.The facility failed to ensure DS B refrained from adding water to spaghetti pureed meals during lunch service on 12/9/2025.This failure could place residents who received a puree diet at risk for diminished or altered nutritional status and potential weight loss.Observation on 12/9/2023 at 11:14 AM revealed DS B poured water into the spaghetti noodles and sauce to assist in achieving the proper puree consistency. Observation on 12/9/2025 at 11:15 AM revealed DS A correcting DS B in her use of water for puree meals and instructed DS B to use broth. DS A was observed checking the consistency of the puree and advised DS B to continue using the food processor to achieve a smoothsmooth consistency. In an interview on 12/9/2025 at 11:16 AM, DS B stated that she returned to the facility several months ago as the cook but worked at the facility for some time prior. DS B stated…
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 · E2025-08-30 · tag F0585 — failed to handle grievances — patternHonor 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
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to notify residents on how to file a grievance in an anonymous manner, and the contact information of the Grievance Official for 4 confidential residents out of 4 residents interviewed for grievances. 1.The facility failed to notify Residents or their representatives either individually or through prominent postings throughout the facility on how to file a grievance or complaint in an anonymous manner. 2.The facility failed to communicate to the residents who the facility identified as the Grievance Official. These failures could affect resident's ability to file a grievance without the fear of discrimination, reprisal, retribution, and their right to request a written decision regarding the resolution of their grievance.Observation on 08/30/2025 at 3:31 PM of a sign posted on a wall near the activities room titled, Social Services Policies and Procedures Complaints/Grievances Process revealed: Grievances/Complaints are accepted by the following, but not limited to:A. AdministratorB. Department manager or…
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 · E2025-05-16 · tag F0557 — patternHonor the resident's right to be treated with respect and dignity and to retain and use personal possessions.
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 a resident with an indwelling urinary catheter received treatment and services for 1 of 5 residents (Resident's #1, #2, and #3) reviewed for indwelling urinary catheters. 1. The facility failed to have a physician's order for Resident #2's urinary catheter. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1, Resident #2, and Resident #3's urinary catheter bags were inside a privacy cover while inside and outside of their rooms. This deficient practice could affect any resident with an indwelling urinary catheter and place them at risk of increased UTI's, discomfort, and decreased quality of life. The findings included: Review of Resident #1's comprehensive MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected an [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included stroke (poor blood flow to part of the brain causing cell death), high blood pressure, diabetes, hyperlipidemia (high levels of fats in the blood), 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 before2025-05-16 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs and describes the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 4 (Residents #1, #2, #3, and #4) of 7 residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans. The facility failed to care plan the use of Residents #1, #2, #3, and #4's urinary catheters. This failure placed residents that had urinary catheters at risk of not having their need for assistance met and increased susceptibility to UTI's. The findings included: Review of Resident #1's comprehensive MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected an [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included stroke (poor blood flow to part of the brain causing cell death), high…
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 · D2024-09-19 · 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 observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to refer all level II residents and all residents with newly evident or possible serious mental disorder, intellectual disability, or a related condition for level II resident review for one (Resident # 21) of eight residents reviewed for PASRR services. The facility failed to refer Resident #21 for a PASRR level II evaluation to the State-designated authority. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving specialized PASRR services which would enhance their highest level of functioning and could contribute to residents decline in physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Findings included: Record review of Resident #21's face sheet, dated 09/18/24, reflected the resident had a primary diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (common lung disease that makes it difficult to breathe) and other diagnoses were listed as dementia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disease. Record review of Resident #21's quarterly…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-09-19 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident that included measurable objectives and time frames that met the residents clinical and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for 2 (Resident #19 and Resident #22) out of 8 residents reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to ensure that Resident #19's comprehensive care plan included her diagnosis of pain. The facility failed to ensure that Resident #22's Care Plan was updated to reflect that he no longer had an indwelling catheter. This failure could place residents at risk of having received inadequate interventions not individualized to their care needs and diagnoses. Findings Included: 1.) Record Review of Resident #19's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed she was an [AGE] year-old male who admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (disease of 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.
Show the remaining 10 citations
- Potential for harm · D2024-09-19 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice and the comprehensive care plan for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #4) reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #4 was not misdiagnosed with schizoaffective disorder. This failure could place residents at a risk of being misdiagnosed and receiving incorrect treatment. Findings included: Record review of Resident #4's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected she was a [AGE] year-old-female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The resident had a BIMS score of 3 indicating severe cognitive impairment. The resident's diagnoses included hip fracture, non-Alzheimer's dementia, and schizophrenia. Record review of Resident #4's comprehensive care plan, dated 07/19/24, reflected: Resident uses psychotropic medications related to behavior management, schizoaffective/bipolar type, and dementia with psychotic disturbance. Record review of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-09-19 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to establish and 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 two (Resident #62 and Resident #188) of 8 residents observed for infection control. 1. LVN A failed to clean the blood pressure cuff after using it on Resident #188 who was on enhanced barrier precautions. LVN A used the same blood pressure cuff on Resident #62. 2. The facility failed to post signage on Resident #188's that he was on enhanced barrier precautions. The failures could place residents at risk for healthcare associated cross contamination and infections. Findings included: Record review of Resident #188's face sheet dated 09/17/24, revealed he was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included 3rd degree burns on his left leg and malignant neoplasm of the brain (brain…
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 · F2023-07-27 · 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 observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen. 1. There were 17 expired jello cups and an opened carton of expired cranberry juice stored in the reach-in refrigerator. 2. There was a tray of jello that spilled on top of a box of cooked ham stored in the walk-in refrigerator. 3. There were 24 cans of expired cranberry juice stored in the pantry. 4. There was a box of bananas that was not stored in a dry food storage area. 5. There were two small buckets filled with chemicals stored next to a box of bananas. These failures could place residents who received meals, snacks, and/or beverages from the kitchen at risk of foodborne illness. The findings included : Observation on 07/25/2023 at 9:23 a.m. underneath a food preparation table across from the pantry revealed there was a small green plastic bucket next to a carboard box of bananas. The bucket was filled halfway with a liquid and had a blue towel in it. The box of bananas…
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 · E2023-07-27 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — patternKeep 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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that each resident had a right to secure and confidential personal and medical records for 5 of 10 residents (Residents #273, #270, #271, #34 and #272) reviewed for medical record confidentiality. The facility failed to ensure confidential medical information was kept private by leaving the computer screen open on the medication cart and leaving the 24-hour report (a report with resident names, diagnoses, and vital signs) on top of the cart and exposed where passersby could read it. This failure could place Residents at risk for breach of confidential information possibly impairing the dignity of the resident by others having pertinent medical information regarding residents' health status. Findings included: Record review of Resident #273's undated Face Sheet reflected he was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Type 2 Diabetes (a chronic condition that affects the way the body processes blood…
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 before2023-07-27 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the Facility failed to ensure Each resident will have a person-centered comprehensive care plan developed and implemented to meet his or her preferences and goals, and address the resident's medical, physical, mental, and psychosocial needs for 2 of 2 residents reviewed. B) Resident #24's comprehensive care plan did not address the resident's right-hand contracture, and call lights assistance C) Resident #35's comprehensive care plan did not address the resident receiving hospice services. This failure could place Residents at risk by failing to meet the resident's preferences, choices, and goals during their stay at the facility. Findings included: A) Record review of Resident #24's admission record dated 07/27/23 documented an [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE]. Resident #24's documented diagnoses included: Displaced intertrochanteric fracture of left femur, subsequent encounter for closed fracture with routine healing (extracapsular fractures of 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 · E2023-07-27 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure 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 observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure all drugs and biologicals were stored in locked compartments and permitted only authorized personnel to have access to them for 2 of 2 residents (Residents #371 and #12) reviewed for medication administration and 1 of 4 medication carts (the 200 Hall Nurses Medication Cart) reviewed for medication storage. A) The facility failed to ensure over-the-counter medications for Residents #371 and #12 were stored in locked compartments. B) The facility failed to ensure the medication cart was locked when it was left unattended in the common area of the 200-hallway. These deficient practices could place residents at risk of medication misuse or drug diversion. Findings included: A) Record review of Resident # 371's undated Face Sheet reflected an [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Hyperlipidemia (high level of fats in the blood), Depression (mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness 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 before2023-07-27 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 3 of 16 (#273, #272, and #24) Residents reviewed for infection control practices. A. RN D placed his ungloved fingers into medication cups prior to administration for Resident's #273 and #272. B. CNA F failed to use proper urinary catheter care techniques when proving perineal hygiene for Resident #24. These failures had the potential to affect all residents in the facility by placing them at risk of contracting, spreading, and/or exposing them to bacterial or viral infections that could lead to the spread of communicable diseases. Findings included: A) Record review of Resident #273's undated Face Sheet reflected he was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of Type 2 Diabetes (a chronic condition…
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 before2023-07-27 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each 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 observations, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure residents received services in the facility with reasonable accommodations of each resident's needs for 1 of 18 residents (Resident #24) reviewed for call lights in that: Resident #24's call light was not within reach. This failure could affect all residents who needed assistance with activities of daily living and could result in needs not being met. Findings included: Record review of Resident #24's admission record dated 07/27/23 documented a [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE]. Resident #24 documented diagnoses included: Displaced intertrochanteric fracture of left femur, subsequent encounter for closed fracture with routine healing (fracture of left leg), non st elevation (NSTEM) myocardial infarction (type of heart attack that usually happens when your heart's need for oxygen can't be met), candidiasis (Vaginal yeast infection), lack of coordination (coordination impairment or loss of coordination), type 2 diabetes…
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 · D2023-07-27 · 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 not admit any new residents with a mental disorder unless the State mental health authority has determined based on an independent physical and mental evaluation performed by a person or entity other than the State mental health authority, prior to admission that because of the physical and mental condition of the individual, the individual requires the level of services provided by a nursing facility for (Resident #38) of one of four resident reviewed for PASARR screenings. The facility failed to ensure Resident #38 PASARR Level One screening accurately reflected their diagnoses of mental illness. This failure could affect residents with mental illness placing them at risk for a diminished quality of life and not receiving necessary care and services in accordance with individually assessed needs. Findings included: Review of Resident #38's admission Face Sheet dated July 26, 2023, revealed a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE].…
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 · D2023-07-27 · 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 respiratory care was provided consistent with professional standards of practice for two of two residents (Residents #3 and #125) reviewed for respiratory care. A) The facility failed to ensure Resident #3's oxygen concentrator filter was clean and her CPAP and nebulizer masks and tubing were covered and dated. B) The facility failed to ensure Resident #125's oxygen concentrator filter was clean and her oxygen tubing were dated. This failure could place all residents who use respiratory equipment at risk for respiratory infections. Findings included: A) Record review of Resident #3's undated Face Sheet reflected she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of acute and chronic Respiratory Failure with Hypoxia (impairment of gas exchange between the lungs and the blood causing shortness of breath, anxiety, confusion). Observation on 07/25/2023 at10:40 AM in Resident #3's room revealed she had…
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 DALLAS COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT — 5 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 | 3.0 | +1.0 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.2 | +1.8 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.6 | -0.6 vs chain |
The other 4 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.0★, 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 | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| BRADLEY, SHANNAN | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 12/11/2023 |
| CASTANEDA, EDMUNDO | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/10/2022 |
| PORTER, CHRIS | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | since 02/27/2023 |
| CERISE, FREDERICK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 03/24/2014 |
| DALLAS COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 03/31/2017 |
| J-S CLEBURNE OPERATIONS LP | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 03/31/2017 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 8 rows in the source record cover these 6 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
2 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
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 676197. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-12-11, 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.