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

The Plaza at Edgemere

8502 Edgemere, Dallas, TX 75225 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 72 certified beds · (214) 615-7045 Medicare only — no Medicaid

Call the home — (214) 615-7045 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
1 actual-harm citation$12,735 in federal fines
Insights

The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
Worth asking about
  • it has 1 actual-harm citation
  • the CMS record shows $12,735 in federal fines (most recent 2026-03-27)

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.

4/5
CMS overall
4 of 5
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

Hospital
Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
8616 Turtle Creek Blvd · (833) 427-2665 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
6707 W Northwest Hwy · (214) 361-4637 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
Tom Thumb0.4 mi
4001 Villanova St · (214) 368-8636 · Call to confirm hours
Park
3400 Northwest Pkwy · (214) 363-1644 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
3933 Northwest Parkway · (214) 860-1500

Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Overall quality measures 4 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 4 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 5 of 5

Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.

Trend — is this home getting better or worse?

Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating 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.

Overall rating4★
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 increased18.8%15.8%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight5.3%3.0%5.4%typical
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder1.7%0.3%0.9%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection3.0%0.8%2.0%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms1.6%2.4%6.5%better 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 injury0.0%3.3%3.3%check this — see note marked star below the table
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication10.0%18.0%18.9%better
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers8.7%3.8%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control9.5%13.4%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table21.7%9.6%17.1%worse
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.1%1.5%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine96.7%88.0%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission25.4%25.7%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit8.3%12.3%12.0%better
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days0.662.171.67better
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days0.562.061.80better

* This home reported 0% on a measure where lower is better. That can mean genuinely excellent care — but because the number is self-reported, a zero can also mean the problem was not recorded. Weigh it against the inspection record above.

On this measure the state average is at least twice (or half) the typical state — a gap that size is usually how the state codes and reports the measure, not how its homes actually perform. Against a benchmark this state does not sit on, a “vs typical state” verdict would mostly be measuring the state, so we compare this home with its own state instead and show both averages.

§ Antipsychotics carry an FDA boxed warning — they raise the risk of death in older people with dementia-related psychosis, and are not approved for that use. So this measure is partly a read on whether a home sedates residents instead of staffing for them. But read a low rate carefully in both directions: CMS excludes residents coded with schizophrenia (and Tourette's or Huntington's) from this measure, and federal auditors have found implausible increases in schizophrenia coding since the measure was published — so a very low rate can reflect recoding rather than less prescribing. Ask the home what share of its residents carry a schizophrenia diagnosis, and how it handles behavioral symptoms without medication.

CMS quality measures, as Care Compare shows them. For most rows lower is better (fewer falls, ulcers, hospitalizations); vaccination rates are the exception. Not every row is risk-adjusted. CMS adjusts some measures for resident mix, but falls with major injury, antipsychotic use, physical restraints and the vaccination rates are unadjusted rates — so a home caring for heavier or more behaviorally complex residents can look worse on them without providing worse care. The “typical state” column is the median of the 50 state averages — not a national average of all homes. We use it because a plain average across homes is pulled badly off course by a few states’ reporting habits (long-stay depressive symptoms is the clearest case: Illinois codes it several times higher than most states, which alone lifted the all-homes figure to about twice what a typical state records). The median of state averages resists that — but it does weigh every state equally, so a large state counts no more than a small one, and it is a benchmark of our construction rather than a CMS-published figure. better/worse means the home differs from that benchmark by more than 10% of it; closer than that reads typical. CMS does not publish how many residents each measure covers, and the counts are often small — a single resident can move a rate by several points — so treat small gaps as noise. These come from data the facility reports, so weigh them against the independent inspection record above.

Short-stay rehab — if you are coming here from a hospital

Arriving from a hospital right now? Read the discharge guide → — your appeal rights, how to slow a rushed discharge, and what to ask about the numbers below.

65.4% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 370 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

65.4%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
9.9%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
53.8%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.84U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.45hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.30hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.10hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 53.8% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 184 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.84 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 95% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 48% 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 SNF65.4%CMS range 60.9–69.351.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024better than U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF9.9%CMS range 7.5–13.110.7%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 discharge53.8%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge60.3%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge41.3%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified99.4%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 setting100.0%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge100.0%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay0.9%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 worsened2.2%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 hospitalization5.7%CMS range 3.9–8.77.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs0.911.02Oct 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

0.76
RN hours/ resident / day
1.37
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.16
Aide hours/ resident / day
4.29
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.60
RN hoursweekends
Total nursing turnover
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 72 beds and averages 60.0 residents a day — about 83% occupied, or roughly 12 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.29 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.76 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.16 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 4.01 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.40 on weekdays — 9% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.82 to 0.60 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

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

3
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-01-22)
8
at the previous standard inspection (2024-10-03)

Deficiencies are fewer than at the previous inspection — improving. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.

Inspection deficiencies

State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.

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.

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

  • Actual harm · G2026-03-27 · 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 observation, interview, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure a resident received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's choices for 2 (Residents #1 and #2) of 5 residents reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 and Resident #2 did not develop wounds due to ill-fitting (too small) briefs for both, and the use of a mechanical lift sling that was too small for Resident #1. This failure could place residents at risk for pain and infection.Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #1's admission MDS Assessment, dated 03/05/26, reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her cognitive skills for daily decision making were moderately impaired. The resident was always incontinent of urine and frequently incontinent of stool. Her diagnoses included heart failure, diabetes, and end-stage kidney disease. Record review of…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-01-22 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    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

    Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in the facility's only kitchen reviewed for food safety. The facility failed to ensure that only paper towels were placed in 3 of 3 handwashing sink garbage receptacles.The facility failed to ensure that 1 of 3 handwashing sinks had a garbage receptacle.The facility failed to maintain the sanitizing solution used in the manual dishwashing process at the proper chemical concentration required for effective sanitation.The facility failed to ensure that stored canned goods had uncompromised seals and were free from dents.These failures could have placed residents at risk for food-borne illness and cross contamination. Observation of the kitchen on January 20, 2026, at 10:06 a.m., revealed the following:2 of 3 handwashing sinks had garbage receptacles that contained items other than disposable paper towels, including disposable gloves, product boxes, food, and other forms of trash.1 of 3 handwashing…

    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 · Ecited before2026-01-22 · tag F0851 — pattern
    Electronically submit to CMS complete and accurate direct care staffing information, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to electronically submit to CMS complete and accurate direct care staffing information for the fourth quarter (July 1, 2025, to September 30, 2025). The facility failed to submit complete PBJ staffing information to CMS for July 1, 2025, to September 30, 2025. This failure could place all residents at risk for personal needs not being identified and met, decreased quality of care, decline in health status, and decreased feelings of well-being within their living environment. Findings Included:Record review of the CASPER3 PBJ report reflected the facility failed to submit data for the FY quarter 4 (July 1, 2025- September 30, 2025). No other quarter triggered. An interview with the Administrator on 01/20/2026 at 9:30 am, revealed she was not employed by this facility during that reporting period. She stated that she was unaware of the failure to report data for that reporting period.An interview with the Executive Director on 01/20/2026 at 9:31 am revealed the facility simply did not get the data entered in the system in on…

    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 · Dcited before2026-01-22 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain an Infection Prevention and Control Program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for two (Resident #14, and #71) of four residents observed for infection control in that: LVN A failed to disinfect the blood pressure cuff (used to take blood pressure), and the thermometer in between vital sign checks for Resident #14, and Resident #71. This failure could place residents at risk for spread of infection through cross-contamination. Findings included:Review of Resident #14's 5-day MDS assessment, dated 01/10/2026, reflected she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE], with the following diagnoses: hypertension (high blood pressure), diabetes (increase of blood sugar), and anxiety disorder (anxious and nervous). Resident #14's BIMs score of 15 indicated the resident was alert and oriented 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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-12-02 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident consistent with the resident rights that included measurable objectives and time frames to meet the resident's medical, nursing, and psychosocial needs identified in the comprehensive assessment for 1 (Resident #2) of 4 residents reviewed for care plan review and revision.The facility failed to review and revise Resident #2's care plan after he fell on [DATE] and 06/22/2025. This failure could affect all residents and contribute to residents not receiving the care and services they needed to prevent falls. The findings included: Record review of Resident #2's Face Sheet, dated 10/09/2025, reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old male who admitted on [DATE]. Resident #2 had diagnoses which included dementia (decline in cognitive function that interferes with daily life) and a history of falls. Record review of Resident #2's Quarterly MDS (tool used to measure health…

    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 · Fcited before2024-10-03 · 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

    Based on observation, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to ensure food was stored, prepared, distributed, and served in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 2 kitchens reviewed for food storage, labeling, dating, and kitchen sanitation. 1. The facility failed to ensure foods in the refrigerator and freezer, were properly sealed from air-borne contaminations. 2. The facility failed to clean the food storage bins in the dry food storage area in the main kitchen. The facility failed to clean the Ice Machine on both the 3rd floor (Main Kitchen) and 2nd floor (Secondary Kitchen). These failures could place residents at risk for cross contamination and air-borne illnesses. Findings included: Observations on 10/01/24 from 8:39 AM to 9:00 AM in the facility's main kitchen reflected: The food storage bins in the dry food storage area, were noted to have stains to the top of the container lid. Observations on 10/01/24 from 12:27 PM to 12:33 PM in the facility's secondary kitchen area located on the second floor reflected: Ice machine upper inside…

    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 · E2024-10-03 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — pattern
    Provide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents, who needed respiratory care, were provided such care consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences for three (Resident #6, Resident #15, and Resident #32) of eight residents reviewed for Respiratory Care. 1. The facility failed to ensure that Resident #6's nasal cannula (flexible tube used to deliver oxygen to the nose through two prongs) was properly stored. 2. The facility failed to ensure that Resident #15's CPAP mask (continuous positive airway pressure: machine used to deliver pressurized air through a mask to keep airways open) was stored properly. 3. The facility failed to ensure that Resident #32's CPAP mask was stored properly. These failures could place the residents at risk for respiratory infection and not having their respiratory needs met. Findings included: 1. Review of Resident #6's Face Sheet, dated…

    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 · Ecited before2024-10-03 · tag F0851 — pattern
    Electronically submit to CMS complete and accurate direct care staffing information, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to electronically submit to CMS complete and accurate direct care staffing information, including information, for agency and contract staff, based on payroll and other verifiable and auditable data in a uniform format according to specification established by CMS for 1 of 4 FY quarters (FY Quarter 3 for 2024 (April 1-June 30) reviewed for administration. The facility failed to submit staffing data to CMS for (April 1- June 30). The facility's failure could place residents at risk for personal needs not being identified and met, decreased quality of care, decline in health status, and decreased feelings of well-being within their living environment. Findings included: Record review of the CMS PBJ Staffing Data Report, CASPER Report 1705D FY Quarter 3 2024 (April 1 - June 30), dated 09/24/2024, revealed the following entry: Failed to Submit Data for the Quarter .Triggered .Triggered=No Data Submitted for the Quarter. In an interview on 10/03/24 at 12:55 PM, ADMIN said that he was responsible for uploading the PBJ he said he…

    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 · Ecited before2024-10-03 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an Infection Prevention and Control Program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for two (Resident #18 and Resident #198) of eight residents observed for Infection Control. 1. The facility failed to ensure that CNA A changed her gloves and performed hand hygiene while providing incontinent care to Resident #18. 2. The facility failed to ensure that CNA B and the MDS Nurse changed their gloves and performed hand hygiene while providing incontinent care to Resident #198. These failures could place the residents at risk of cross-contamination and development of infections. Findings included: 1. Review of Resident #18's Face Sheet, dated 10/03/2024, reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE]. Resident #18 was diagnosed with abnormalities of gait and mobility. Review of Resident #18's…

    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.

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-10-03 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
    Honor 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 review, the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promoted maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life for one (Resident #29) of 5 residents reviewed for dignity. The facility failed to treat Resident #29 with dignity and promote enhancement of his quality of life when the resident's catheter bag was not placed away from the door as care planned. This failure placed residents at risk of not having their right to a dignified existence maintained. Findings included: Review of Resident #29's Face Sheet, dated 10/03/2024, reflected resident was a [AGE] year-old male admitted on [DATE]. Resident #29 was diagnosed with complete at T2 - T6 (second to sixth thoracic vertebrae) level of thoracic spinal cord (bundle of nerve fibers), paraplegia (paralysis of the lower part of the body), and neurogenic dysfunction of bladder (the normal bladder function is disrupted due to…

    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 · D2024-10-03 · tag F0641 — isolated
    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 observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that assessments accurately reflected the resident's status for one (Resident #32) of eight residents reviewed for Accuracy of Assessments. The facility failed to ensure Resident #32's Comprehensive MDS Assessment accurately reflected that Resident #32 was using a CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure: machine used to deliver pressurized air through a mask to keep airways open). This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving care and services to meet their needs, for diminished function of health, and for regressions in their overall health. Findings included: Review of Resident #32's Face Sheet, dated 10/03/2024, reflected the resident was an [AGE] year-old male admitted on [DATE]. Resident #32 was diagnosed with acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia (insufficient amount of oxygen in the body). Review of Resident #32's Comprehensive MDS Assessment, dated 08/30/2024, reflected Resident #32 had…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-10-03 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights set forth that included measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for a resident for one (Resident #19) of seven residents reviewed for Care Plans. The facility failed to ensure Resident #19 was care planned for Hospice Care. This failure could place the residents at risk of not receiving the necessary care and services. Findings included: Review of Resident #19's Face Sheet, dated 10/03/2024, reflected the resident was an [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE]. Resident #19 was diagnosed with dementia. Review of Resident #19's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 07/18/2024, reflected Resident #19 had severe impairment in cognition with a BIMS score of 00. Resident #19's Quarterly MDS Assessment…

    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 · D2024-10-03 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolated
    Provide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that one (Resident #148) of five residents were provided medications and/or biologicals and pharmaceutical services to meet their needs. The facility failed to ensure LVN C did not leave Resident #148's medications inside the resident's room. This failure could place the residents at risk of not receiving medications as ordered by the physician. Findings included: Review of Resident #148's Face Sheet, dated 10/03/2024, reflected the resident was an [AGE] year-old male admitted on [DATE]. Relevant diagnoses included encephalopathy (a disease that affects the brain), depression, and cognitive communication deficit. Review of Resident #148's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 07/08/2024, reflected resident had moderate impairment in cognition with a BIMS score of 11. The Quarterly MDS Assessment also indicated Resident #148 had debility (weakness) and cardiorespiratory (relating to the heart and the lungs) conditions. Review of…

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

    Pharmacy Service 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

$12,735 in federal fines across 1 penalty.

  • $12,735 — penalty dated 2026-03-27

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.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleShareSince
GRENELLE HOLDINGS LLCOrganization5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST100%since 06/13/2023
LAPIS MUNICIPAL OPPORTUNITIES IV LPOrganization5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST100%since 06/13/2023
CHAVEZ, FRANKIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 06/13/2023
HATCH, KJERSTINIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 06/13/2023
TERRELL, BASIAIndividualCORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 06/13/2023
CERTUS EDGEMERE MANAGEMENT LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 08/01/2024
ODORIZZI, SANDRAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 10/13/2025
LAPIS- GP LLCOrganizationGENERAL PARTNERSHIP INTERESTsince 06/13/2023

CMS files one row per role, so the 12 rows in the source record cover these 8 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.

4 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.

$19.2M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-40.7%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
$180K
Related-party expense1% of expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 0%Medicare 35%Other / private 65%

This home reported $180K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

$2,803per resident / day
operating cost
$85,215per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$1,992per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

Paying with Medicaid

CMS lists this home as Medicare-certified only — it is not Medicaid-certified, so it generally cannot accept Medicaid as payment for a long-term stay. That makes it one of roughly 545 homes nationally where a Medicaid-funded placement is not an option. If you expect to rely on Medicaid, ask the home directly before you tour, and see the Texas Medicaid page for homes that do.

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 676002. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-01-22, 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