No sales calls · nothing personal collected unless you ask us to · no facility pays to be here
Text size
Contrast

Woodlake Nursing Center

603 E. Plantation Rd, Clute, TX 77531 · For profit - Corporation · 93 certified beds · (979) 265-4221 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Resident-funds citation (F0567)2 immediate-jeopardy citations$20,965 in federal fines
Insights

This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.

In its favor
  • a middle-of-the-pack inspection score (3/5)
Worth asking about
  • it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0567)
  • inspectors cited 2 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
  • the CMS record shows $20,965 in federal fines (most recent 2024-06-11)
  • its payroll-based staffing rating is low (2/5)
  • its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (2/5)

One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.

A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.

3/5
CMS overall
3 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 3 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 2 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 2 of 5

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★★ 4/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
635 Dixie Dr Ste 4 · (979) 316-3314 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
51 Dixie Dr · (979) 265-2517 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
501 S Main St · (979) 265-2046 · Call to confirm hours
Park
Quintana Beach Freeport · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
540 E Plantation Dr · (979) 265-2118

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 2 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 1 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 4 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 2 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.

Overall rating2★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased25.4%15.8%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight11.8%3.0%5.4%worse
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%0.3%0.9%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection3.6%0.8%2.0%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms4.8%2.4%6.5%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.0%0.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury8.5%3.3%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened25.7%14.0%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication9.2%18.0%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine96.4%98.0%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers5.9%3.8%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control15.5%13.4%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table18.3%9.6%17.1%typical
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.0%1.5%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine89.2%88.0%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission12.9%25.7%22.6%better
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit11.1%12.3%12.0%typical
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days3.462.171.67worse
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days2.682.061.80worse

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.

10.9%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
0.23U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.12hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.11hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
<0.01hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.23 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 29% 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
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNFnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.9%CMS range 6.9–17.810.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no 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 dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS 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 settingnot 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 dischargenot 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 stay0.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened4.3%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalizationnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.431.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS 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

0.42
RN hours/ resident / day
0.85
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.24
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.50
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.32
RN hoursweekends
54.0%
Total nursing turnover
50.0%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 93 beds and averages 50.0 residents a day — about 54% occupied, or roughly 43 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.50 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.42 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.24 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 3.08 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.67 on weekdays — 16% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.46 to 0.32 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 54% is about the same as the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

2
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2025-06-26)
2
at the previous standard inspection (2024-05-23)

Deficiencies are unchanged from the previous inspection. 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.

ABCDEFGHIJKL

Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.

12 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.

  • Immediate jeopardy · J2024-06-11 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolated
    Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choices for one (Resident #1) of seven residents reviewed for quality of care. 1. The facility delayed Resident #1 a transfer to the hospital for higher level of care and delayed treatment resulting in prolonged discomfort and pain. An IJ was identified on 06/07/24. The IJ template was provided to the facility on [DATE] at 6:13 pm. While the IJ was removed on 06/11/24, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of isolated and a severity level of no actual harm with potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy due to the facility's need to monitor the implementation of the plan of removal. This failure could place residents at risk of decline or decrease in their quality of life and quality of care. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's face…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Immediate jeopardy · J2024-06-11 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure 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 interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure that the resident environment remained as free of accident hazards as was possible and that each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for two (Resident #1 and Resident #2) of five residents reviewed for accidents hazards and supervision, in that: 1. The facility failed to make sure staff were properly trained before operating the hoyer lift. Resident #1 sustained a hip fracture during a Hoyer lift transfer by CNA A and NA B, which required surgical intervention. 2. Resident #2 was placed into his wheelchair and left unattended after a decline in his health caused him unsteady trunk balance and support. He fell out of the wheelchair, hit his face, and was transferred to the emergency room. An IJ was identified on 06/07/24. The IJ template was provided to the facility on [DATE] at 6:13 pm. While the IJ was removed on 06/11/24, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of isolated and a…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-01-15 · tag F0567 — failed to protect residents' money held by the home — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to manage his or her financial affairs.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to manage their finances for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #2) reviewed for personal funds in that:The facility failed to obtain consent from Resident #2's court-appointed guardian before filing to become Resident #2's representative payee, and the facility failed to prevent the Business Office Manager from signing and dating Resident #2's Medicaid application for 2025. These failures placed residents at risk of violating their right to self-manage their own financial matters.Record review of Resident #2's face sheet dated [DATE] revealed he was a [AGE] year-old male initially admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. His diagnoses included Down syndrome (extra full or partial copy of chromosome 21 which causes differences in physical development, learning, and developmental delay thinking), severe intellectual disabilities (significant limitations with learning, reasoning, problem solving), and speech disturbances (a…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-01-15 · tag F0644 — isolated
    Coordinate 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to incorporate the recommendations from the PASARR Level II determination and the PASARR evaluation report into a resident's assessment, care planning, and transitions of care services for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for PASARR.-The facility failed to submit a request through the Simple LTC portal for a customized manual wheelchair for Resident #1 within the time frame set by PASARR or asked for guidance from PASARR support when form was not accepted.This failure could have affected residents who required a specialized PASARR service.Record review of Resident #1's face sheet dated 01/15/26 revealed he was a [AGE] year-old male admitted on [DATE]. His diagnoses included cerebral palsy (group of lifelong neurological disorders that affect movement, muscle tone, and posture), dementia (decline in mental ability severe enough to interfere with activities of daily living), and speech disturbances (a condition that disrupts the ability…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2025-06-26 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespread
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for the 1 of 1 kitchen. -The facility failed to ensure Dietary Staff A wore hair net and beard cover while in the kitchen. -The facility failed to ensure that the kitchen and the equipment were kept in a clean, sanitary condition. -The facility failed to ensure that prepared, leftover food items in one of two freezers, and one of one walk-in freezer were dated and labeled with an open\store date and use by date. - The facility failed to ensure that dented cans were stored away from undented cans. -The facility failed to ensure that trash can in the kitchen was covered and not exposed in food preparation area. These failures could place residents at risk for cross contamination and food-borne illnesses. Findings include: Initial kitchen observations, and interviews, on 05/27/25 from 9:00 AM to 9:20 AM revealed- - Dietary Staff A…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2025-06-26 · tag F0641 — pattern
    Ensure 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, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure assessments accurately reflected the resident's status for 3 of 15 resident (Resident #14, Resident #17, and Resident #53) reviewed for accuracy of assessments. - The facility failed to accurately assess Residents #14, #17, and #53 for their lack of natural teeth in their oral cavity. These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving care and services necessary for their physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. The findings included: Resident #14 Record review of Resident #14's face sheet dated 06/25/25 revealed a -[AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart disease, essential (primary) hypertension (High blood), type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropath (nerve damage that can happen with diabetes) arthritis (inflammation of the joints), panic disorder, anxiety and major depressive disorder, cognitive…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · F2024-05-23 · tag F0837 — widespread
    Establish a governing body that is legally responsible for establishing and implementing policies for managing and operating the facility and appoints a properly licensed administrator responsible for managing the facility.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, and record review, the governing body failed to have a qualified Administrator reviewed for governing body. -The facility failed to ensure the Corporate Administrator was the active administrator. - The facility failed to ensure the Administrator in training (AIT) had an active Texas Administrator license. This failure could place residents at risk of being cared for by staff who were not managed by a licensed Administrator. Findings include: During the entrance conference on 5/20/24 around 9:00 am, the AIT identified herself as the Administrator/AIT and said that the Corporate Administrator would arrive at the facility shortly. Record review on 5/20/24 at 9:30 am of undated facility document titled Key Personnel revealed Corporate Administrator was listed as the facility Administrator. Interview on 5/20/24 at 2:42 pm with the Corporate Administrator, he said he was no longer the administrator at the facility and that the facility currently had no licensed Administrator. He said the AIT was the Administrator and then clarified that the AIT had no…

    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.

    Administration Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-05-23 · tag F0727 — failed to provide required RN coverage — pattern
    Have a registered nurse on duty 8 hours a day; and select a registered nurse to be the director of nurses on a full time basis.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on record review and interview, the facility failed to utilize the services of a Registered Nurse for at least 8 consecutive hours a day, seven days a week for 4th quarters of 2023 and first quarters of 2024 reviewed for RN Coverage. -The facility failed to provide evidence of a RN coverage for 8 hours a day, seven days a week for 7 days out of 92 days for quarter 4 of 2023 (07/09/, 07/22/, 07/23, 08/19, 08/20,09/02, and 09/03/23) and 9 out of 91days in Fiscal Year quarter 1 of 2024 from October 1 through December 31, 2024). (10/28, 10/29, 11/11, 11/12,11/25, 11/26,12/09, 12/10, &12/23/2024) This failure could place residents at risk for altered physical, mental, and psychological well-being due to decisions that would have required an RN to make in the management of the residents' healthcare needs and in managing and monitoring the direct care staff. Findings include: Record review of the facility's Payroll Based Journal Staffing Data Report for Fiscal Year Quarter 1 2024 (October -December 31 revealed no evidence of a RN coverage on the following days 10/28/24 and 10/29/24;…

    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.

    Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-03-31 · tag F0636 — pattern
    Assess the resident completely in a timely manner when first admitted, and then periodically, at least every 12 months.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews and record review, the facility failed to conduct a comprehensive, accurate, standardized reproducible assessment for 4 of 16 (Resident # 11, #51, #8, #66,) reviewed for accuracy of assessments. 1 Resident # 11's annual MDS assessment did not reflect her mental illness and dental care needs. 2 Resident #51 was not assessed for his race\ethnicity, His admission MDS did not reflect his use of assistive device for ambulating, his dental, vision, and hearing need, his fall history 3 Resident #8's significant change MDS did not reflect his bed rails, pressure reducing device for bed, pressure reducing device for chair, turning/repositioning program, and applications of ointments/medications. 4 Resident #66's significant change MDS did not reflect her oxygen therapy, suctioning, pressure reducing device for bed, application of nonsurgical dressings (with or without topical medications) other than to feet, applications of ointments/medications other than to feet, ability to hear (with…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-03-31 · tag F0646 — pattern
    Notify the appropriate authorities when residents with MD or ID services has a significant change in condition.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to notify the state mental health authority or state intellectual disability authority, as applicable, promptly after a significant change in the mental or physical condition of a resident who had mental illness or intellectual disability for 2 of 2 residents (Residents #27 and #47) reviewed for PASARR Significant Change Notification. 1 The facility failed to notify the local mental health authority after Resident #27' significant change in mental illness diagnosis following a new PTSD diagnosis. 2 Resident #47 was identified with a significant change to their mental illness diagnoses and notification was not made to the me local mental health authority. This failure could place residents requiring PASARR services at risk of not having their special needs assessed and met by the facility. Findings include: Resident #27 Record review of Resident #27's admission record dated 3/29/2023 revealed a [AGE] year-old admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-03-31 · tag F0644 — isolated
    Coordinate 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to coordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review (PASARR) program and 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 upon a significant change in status assessment for two of two residents (Residents #27 and #47) reviewed for PASARR assessment. The facility failed to refer Resident #27 and Resident #47 for a PASARR level II screening after a new mental disorder diagnosis was made. This failure could place residents requiring PASARR services at risk of not having their special needs assessed and met by the facility. Findings include: Resident #27 Record review of Resident #27's admission record dated 3/29/2023 revealed a [AGE] year-old admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder (an intense, persistent fear of being watched and judged by others),…

    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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-03-31 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolated
    Develop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to review and revise the care plan after each assessment, including both the comprehensive and quarterly review assessments for 2 (#9, and #66) out of 16 residents reviewed for care plans. 1. Resident #9's code status on his care plan was not updated from full code to DNR and it did not indicate he was Spanish speaking and needed a translator. The care plan also did not mention the resident was ordered oxygen, a pressure relieving mattress, to be turned and repositioned Q 2hr, and he required feeding assistance Q 4hr PRN. 2. Resident #66's care plan did not include heel protectors, oral suctioning, a pressure relieving mattress, and bowel rest from her PEG tube. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of not receiving care and services that are needed to attain/maintain their highest practicable quality of life. 1. Record review of Resident #9's face sheet indicated he is a [AGE] year-old male, readmitted on [DATE], with…

    This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“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.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • 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.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

$20,965 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

  • $20,965 — penalty dated 2024-06-11

Dates are the dates CMS records the penalty, not the date of the conduct behind it. CMS publishes penalties on a rolling window, so this is what is currently on the public file — not the home’s lifetime history, and an older fine may attach to a problem that has since been corrected. The amounts are as imposed: the CMS file does not record whether a penalty was appealed, reduced, or paid, so we don’t say. Ask the home what each one was for and what changed since.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to GULF COAST LTC PARTNERS — 20 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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 3 of 52.4+0.6 vs chain
Health inspection 3 of 53.0≈ chain avg
Staffing 2 of 51.6+0.4 vs chain
Quality measures 2 of 52.6-0.6 vs chain
The other 19 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.4★, 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 / managerTypeRoleSince
MURRELL, EDWARDIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 01/15/2024
CLUTE LTC PARTNERS INCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 01/15/2024
BERGERON, BOBBYIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 01/15/2024
NICHOLSON, LOUISIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 01/15/2024
IMPERIAL TRADING COMPANY, INCOrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 01/15/2024
NMS TRUST 2OrganizationADP OF THE SNFsince 01/15/2024
AMIN, ALKESHIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 01/15/2024
CROWE, DEVANIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 10/23/2024

The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

3 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.

$4.9M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-2.7%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 69%Medicare 8%Other / private 23%

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. 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

$242per resident / day
operating cost
$7,359per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$236per day
avg. revenue, all payers

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). 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

Paying with Medicaid

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.

Typical monthly cost in Texas
$5,627/mo
Nursing home (semi-private)
$7,604/mo
Nursing home (private)
$5,666/mo
Assisted living

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 675234. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-06-26, 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.

What to do next