Coleman Healthcare Center
2713 S. Commercial Ave, Coleman, TX 76834 · For profit - Corporation · 54 certified beds · (325) 625-4105 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0567)
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 |
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 fell from 5 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 14.4% | 15.8% | 15.4% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.8% | 3.0% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.3% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 0.8% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.8% | 2.4% | 6.5% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 2.7% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 3.1% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 10.2% | 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 | 1.2% | 3.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 3.3% | 13.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 14.9% | 9.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 95.5% | 88.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 33.3% | 25.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 13.9% | 12.3% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 3.72 | 2.17 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 5.06 | 2.06 | 1.80 | worse |
‡ On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.
§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.
CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.
Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital
Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.06 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 3% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 97% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy at close to weekday levels right through the weekend. 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 | not 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 SNF | 12.5%CMS range 8.0–19.4 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — Newly certified nursing home with less than 12-15 months of data available or the nursing home opened less than 6 months ago, and there were no data to submit or claims for this measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 3.7% | 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 | 7.4% | 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 | not 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 SNFs | 1.04 | 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 54 beds and averages 35.4 residents a day — about 66% occupied, or roughly 19 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 3.83 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.43 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.15 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 3.44 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.98 on weekdays — 14% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.43 to 0.42 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 44% 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.
13 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-03-06 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to properly store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed. 1. The facility failed to ensure DA wore a hair net when he entered the kitchen.2. The facility failed to ensure the cook wore gloves while touching bread when serving food. These failures could place residents at risk for contamination and foodborne illnesses. Findings included: During an observation on 03/03/2026 at 9:59 AM the DA was wearing a baseball cap with hair pulled through the back (ponytail), without the use of a hair net . The [NAME] was observed touching the bread with her bare hand. During an interview on 03/05/2026 at 3:00 PM, the CCS stated all staff in the kitchen should have been wearing a hair net, he stated even if wearing a ball cap, no hair should be uncontained. The CCS stated if any staff were working in the kitchen, if they were going to touch food, the staff had to be gloved. He stated the DM should have monitored the staff 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 · E2026-03-06 · tag F0837 — patternEstablish 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the facility had an Administrator licensed by the state that was responsible for management for 1 of 1 facility's reviewed for governing body. The facility failed to ensure the Assistant Administrator, who was acting as the facility Administrator, had an active Texas Administrator license. The facility had not had a licensed administrator since 06/20/2025. This deficient practice could result in decreased quality of life and quality of care due to a lack of staff oversight and monitoring of care.The findings include:During Interview on 3/06/2026 at 3:30 p.m. The Assistant administrator stated she had failed her test to be a licensed Administrator. She stated she had applied to retest and was waiting for a date to test again. She stated RDO (Regional Director of Operations) was the licensed Administrator covering the building. She stated she could call her if she needed her. She stated there was no negative outcome for residents due to her lack of a valid Administrator license. During interview on 03/06/2026 at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-06 · tag F0728 — failed to protect against nurse-aide misconduct — isolatedEnsure that nurse aides who have worked more than 4 months, are trained and competent; and nurse aides who have worked less than 4 months are enrolled in appropriate training.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure Nurses' Aides were not working in the facility longer than four months without being enrolled in or having completed an approved training course for 2 (NA C and NA D) of 5 nurse aides reviewed. The facility failed to ensure NA C and NA D were certified within the required time frame. This failure could place residents at risk of receiving care from an individual whose skill level was unknown. Findings include: Record review of employee facilities files revealed: -NA C had a hire date of 4/08/2024, worked full time, and no evidence of nurse aide certification. -NA D had a hire date of 03/21/2025 and worked full time and no evidence of nurse aide certification. During an attempt at phone interviews on 03/06/2026 at 4:25 p.m. NA C and NA D were not available. During an interview on 03/06/2026 at 4:15 p.m. with the DON and ADON both stated that the expectation would be for the facility to have certified nurse assistants. The ADON stated that both she and the DON were aware that NA C and NA D had not been tested. She…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-06 · tag F0803 — failed to meet residents' dietary needs — isolatedEnsure menus must meet the nutritional needs of residents, be prepared in advance, be followed, be updated, be reviewed by dietician, and meet the needs of the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the menu was followed, for 1 (lunch meal) of 1 meal observed for nutritional adequacy. The facility failed to ensure Resident #11 received condiments and roll during the lunch. These failures could place residents at risk of poor intake, chemical imbalance and/or weight loss.The findings include: Resident #11 Review of Resident #11's Face Sheet revealed an [AGE] year-old male initially admitted on [DATE]. Resident #11's medical diagnoses included disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, anxiety and lack of coordination. Review of Resident #11's Annual MDS dated [DATE] revealed in Section C - C0500. BIMS Summary Score a BIMS score had not been completed. Review of Resident #11's Comprehensive Care Plan initiated 12/01/2023 and reviewed/revised 01/13/2026 revealed the following focused areas: Nutrition: Focus - Resident has the potential nutritional problem r/t DX Protein-calorie malnutrition and remains at risk for…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-03-06 · 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
During an observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide food prepared by methods that conserve nutritive value, flavor, and appearance as well as failed to provide food and drink that was palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature for 1 of 1 meal The facility failed to provide a lunch meal that was flavorful and palatable due to puree texture and thickness. This failure could place residents at risk for decreased meal satisfaction and weight loss.Findings Include: During an observation on 03/03/2026 at 12:00 PM, the [NAME] placed the puree meal and pureed bread in microwave for reheating. During an observation on 03/03/2026 at 12:35 PM, the CNA E was assisting residents with a puree meal. Observation of the pureed bread looked dry and too thick, the CNA was not assisting with feeding the pureed bread to the resident. During an interview on 03/03/2026 at 12:25 the [NAME] stated there was only on resident who received a pureed meal. The cook stated she always prepared the one residents puree meal and placed covered in the microwave…
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 · D2025-09-11 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure each resident had the right to a dignified existence for 1 of 1[TT1] resident (Resident #1) whose care was reviewed in that: Resident #1's indwelling urinary catheter bag was not covered. These deficient practices could affect residents who had indwelling urinary catheters by contributing to poor self-esteem, lack of information, and unmet needs.The findings were: Record[TT1] review of Resident #1's electronic face dated 09/9/25 sheet revealed he was a [AGE] year-old male that was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included kidney disease (unable to remove waste), heart failure, ureteral obstruction (kidney damage), cerebral infarction (Stroke). Record review of Resident #1's physician's electronic consolidated orders for August 2025 revealed the following: *Catheter care every shift with soap and water ordered.*Access Foley catheter for proper function and ensure proper placement of catheter bag every…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-07-02 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
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 and interview the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment for Residents #6, #7, and #8 (Resident room # 302 and #306) reviewed for environment. The facility failed to ensure resident rooms #302 and #306 were thoroughly cleaned and sanitized. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of living in an unclean and unsanitary environment which could lead to a decreased quality of life. Findings include: An observation on 7/1/25 at 9:45am of room [ROOM NUMBER], revealed the floor was sticky and stained, trash/candy wrappers, and food particles under beds A and B. There was also dirt, candy wrappers, and food particles behind dressers and nightstand., The room had a foul odor. Interview on 7/1/25 at 9:46am, in Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] bed A, Resident #6 stated she was well, staff were respectful., Resident #6 stated that housekeeping cleans the room., When asked when the last time it was swept and mopped, Resident #6…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-11-26 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — patternEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure its medication error rates were not 5% or greater. The facility had a medication error rate of 8%, based on 2 errors out of 25 opportunities which involved 2 of 14 residents (Resident #134 and Resident #22) reviewed for medication administration and medication errors. 1. LVN A on 11/24/2024 administered 1 tablet of buspirone (medication used to treat anxiety) 5mg to Resident #134 when the physicians order date 04/19/2024 called for 2 tablets. 2. LVN B on 11/24/2024 administered 1 tablet of dicyclomine (medication used to relax abdominal muscles to reduce cramping) 20mg to Resident #22 when the physicians order dated 11/14/2024 called for 2 tablets. These failures could place residents at risk for not having the intended therapeutic benefit. The findings included: 1. Review of Resident #134's electronic face sheet revealed an [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included: brain bleed, 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.
- Potential for harm · E2024-11-26 · 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 drugs and biologicals used in the facility were labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles and included the appropriate accessory and cautionary instructions for 1 of 2 medication carts (Hall 300/400 medication cart) and 3 of 35 residents (Resident #2, #18 and #29)) reviewed for medication labeling and storage. The Hall 300/400 medication cart contained a Humulin R flex pen insulin for Resident #2 with an open date of 10/20/2024, making it past 28 days meaning the medication had expired. The Hall 300/400 medication cart contained an Insulin Glargine flex pen insulin for Resident #18 with an open date of 10/18/2024, making it past 28 days meaning the medication had expired. The Hall 300/400 medication cart on 11/24/2024 contained a Lantus flex pen insulin for Resident #29 with an open date of 10/12/2024, making it past 28 days meaning the medication had expired and no pharmacy label with the resident's name…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2023-09-27 · 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in 1 of 1 kitchen. The facility failed to: A. dispose of food items after the use by or expiration date. B. Store, seal and date food items. These failures could place residents receiving oral nutritional intake at risk for foodborne illness and a decline in health status. The findings included: During observation on 09/25/2023 from 9:47am to 10:30am of the kitchen Dry Storage: o One unsealed open 10 pounds plastic bag containing graham cracker crust with open date 04/05/2023, o Four 32-ounce bottles of lemon juice with manufactures expire date of 09/05/2023, and o Box with approximately eight individual cheese crackers with arrive date of 08/09/2023 no open date. Refrigerator o One 10 ponds box containing individual 1.5 sausage patties in unsealed plastic bag open date 09/17/2023 and o One unsealed plastic bag containing 5 pounds of raw hamburger meat from an original 10 pound package dated open…
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 · E2023-09-27 · tag F0567 — failed to protect residents' money held by the home — patternHonor 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 interview, and record review, the facility failed to assure residents who have authorized the facility in writing to manage any personal funds have ready and reasonable access to those funds for 3 of 5 (Resident #10, Resident #16, and Resident #21) residents reviewed for trust funds. The facility failed to ensure Resident #'s 10, 16, and 21 personal use funds were disbursed monthly. This failure could place residents whose funds are managed by the facility at risk of not having money needed to purchase personal items. Findings Included: Record review of Resident #10's face sheet revealed an [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE] with medical diagnoses of high blood pressure, depression, chronic pain, heart disease, and dementia. Record review of Resident #10's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed at BIMS score of 13 out of 15 indicating intact cognition. Record review of Resident #16's face sheet revealed a [AGE] year-old male admitted on [DATE] with medical diagnoses of cerebral palsy (abnormal 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 · D2023-09-27 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to implement written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect, exploitation of residents and misappropriation of resident property by failing to conduct a criminal history/EMR/NAR verification on employees prior to employment and/or annually for 3 of 18 (RN-A, RN-B, and SW-C) employees reviewed for abuse and neglect. Facility staff did not have criminal history verification and/or an EMR/NAR verification prior to offering employment to the facility and/or annually for employees. These findings could place residents at risk of receiving care by someone that was unemployable. The findings included: Record review on 09/27/2023 of the CMS-807 Employee files review revealed: RN-A was hired on 05/10/2023, the facility verified his CH on 09/26/2023. RN-A's EMR was dated 05/02/2023 and was verified on 09/26/2023. RN-B was hired on 08/05/2023, her EMR verification was dated 09/27/2023 and SW-C was hired on 04/12/2023, her CH verification was dated 09/26/2023. SW-C's EMR verification was dated 09/26/2023.…
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 · D2023-09-27 · 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 maintain complete and accurate clinical records for 1 of 4 (Resident #2) residents reviewed for weights. The facility failed to weigh Resident #2 since 07/10/2023. These findings place residents at risk for quick interventions for weight loss. Findings included: Record review of Resident #2's Facesheet dated 09/25/23 revealed: An [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. He had a diagnosis list that included: COPD(Primary), Cognitive communication deficit, Amnesia, Dysphagia, Dementia with psychotic disturbance, Chronic pain, GERD, Vitamin B12 deficiency anemia, Vitamin D deficiency, Constipation. Record review of Resident #2's Significant Change MDS dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS of 2 meaning severe cognitive impairment. No chewing or swallowing difficulties. A weight of 137 lbs. No or unknown weight loss of 5 percent in last 6 months. Resident had a mechanically altered diet . Record review of Resident #2's Quarterly MDS…
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 NEXION HEALTH — 51 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 4 of 5 | 2.2 | +1.8 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.3 | +1.7 vs chain |
| Staffing | 3 of 5 | 2.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 2.6 | +1.4 vs chain |
The other 50 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.2★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 50; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| HOOPER, GRADY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 09/01/2021 |
| SLP COLEMAN, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 09/01/2021 |
| MISTRETTA, CASSANDRA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 09/01/2021 |
The source lists no ownership percentage for any party here — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
About 83% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself.
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 675009. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-03-06, 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.