Villages of Lake Highlands
8615 Lullwater Dr, Dallas, TX 75238 · For profit - Corporation · 126 certified beds · (214) 221-0444 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (35% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- inspectors cited 2 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- inspectors recorded 3 serious findings as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- the CMS record shows $29,022 in federal fines (most recent 2025-08-28)
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (1/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 1 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 4 stars above its independent health-inspection score. The inspection is done by state surveyors; the quality-measure score leans on data the facility reports about itself, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 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 2 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
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 | 17.1% | 15.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.7% | 3.0% | 5.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.7% | 0.3% | 0.9% | worse 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 | 6.8% | 2.4% | 6.5% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.0% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 14.3% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 13.4% | 18.0% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.6% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 5.2% | 3.8% | 4.7% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 24.3% | 13.4% | 21.2% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 5.4% | 9.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.3% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 45.4% | 88.0% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 23.1% | 25.7% | 22.6% | typical |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 7.9% | 12.3% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 3.68 | 2.17 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.97 | 2.06 | 1.80 | better |
‡ 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.
58.7% 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 354 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 70.9% 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 175 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 0.68 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 91% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 23% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 58.7%CMS range 53.2–65.2 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.4%CMS range 7.9–13.2 | 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 | 70.9% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 66.3% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 70.9% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 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 | 80.0% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 94.8% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 1.6% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | 6.1%CMS range 4.1–9.2 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.10 | 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 126 beds and averages 111.1 residents a day — about 88% occupied, or roughly 15 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.48 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.52 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.20 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 4.05 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.65 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.56 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 35% is below the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2025-09-13 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide 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, record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice for 1 (Resident #1) of 20 residents reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed to provide Resident #1 with diabetic treatments on 09/10/25 which included checking blood sugars and administering insulin. The non-compliance was identified as past non-compliance (PNC). The IJ began on 09/10/25 and ended on 09/12/25 and the facility had corrected the non-compliance before the state's investigation began. This failure could place residents' health and safety at risk.Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 09/12/25 reflected, she was a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted [DATE] and diagnosed with but not limited to: Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (chronic disease characterized by high blood sugar) with diabetic chronic kidney disease(Diabetic nephropathy affects the kidneys' usual work of removing waste products and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · Kcited before2025-08-28 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — patternProvide 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 review, the facility failed to ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choices when they failed to ensure physician orders were communicated and carried out in a timely manner for 1 of 4 residents reviewed (Resident #1).The facility failed to check Resident #1's blood sugar twice a day per physician orders from 08/06/25 to 08/13/25. On 08/13/25 Resident #1 had a FSBS of 34 resulting in her being sent to the hospital for emergency interventionAn IJ was identified on 08/27/25. While the IJ was removed on 08/28/25, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of pattern and a severity level of potential for more than minimal harm because the facility was continuing to monitor the implementation and effectiveness of their Plan of Removal.This failure could place residents at risk of experiencing a medical emergency and transfer to 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.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2025-05-16 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — patternProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needed respiratory care was provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences for 1 of 3 Residents (Residents #99) reviewed for respiratory care. The facility failed to promptly notify emergency services when Resident #99 developed respiratory distress following incontinence care on [DATE] at 2:00 PM. The resident's oxygen saturation was 66% and he was on 5 liters of oxygen via nasal cannula. The resident remained in respiratory distress until emergency medical services arrived at 2:45 PM on [DATE] and transferred him to the hospital. An IJ was identified on [DATE]. The IJ template was provided to the facility on [DATE] at 11:00 AM. While the IJ was removed on [DATE], the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of isolated and a severity level of potential for more than minimal harm because all…
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.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2024-04-18 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents were free of any significant medication errors for 1 (Resident #389) of 8 residents reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to prevent LVN A from injecting an unknown amount of Kenalog (a steroid for pain relief) and lidocaine (numbing medicine) medication into Resident #389's arm despite an order to hold the medications on the medication cart for the physician to administer into the resident's knees. The non-compliance was identified as past non-compliance. The Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) began 02/01/24 and ended on 02/02/24. The facility corrected the non-compliance before the survey began. This failure placed residents at risk for harm and/or serious injury. Findings included: Record review of Resident #389's admission Record revealed she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including influenza due to identified influenza A virus with pneumonia, acute respiratory…
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.
- Actual harm · G2024-10-24 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for one of four residents (Resident #1) reviewed for accidents and supervision. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was transferred from her bed to her wheelchair utilizing a Hoyer lift (mechanical lift) with two staff members present as indicated on her care plan. 2. The facility failed to ensure CNA A transferred Resident #1 using a hoyer lift, bruising Resident #1's right arm and left wrist and a skin tear to her left knee. The noncompliance was identified as PNC. The noncompliance began on 07/02/24 and ended on 07/02/224. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. These failures could place residents at risk for neglect, harm, pain, and injuries . Findings include: Record review of Resident #1's admission record, dated 10/24/24, reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE].…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-12-01 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident that included measurable objectives and time frames that met the residents clinical and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for 1 (Resident #14) out of 5 residents reviewed for comprehensive person-centered care plans. The facility failed to ensure that Resident #14's Comprehensive Care Plan included the following:1. The facility failed to ensure that Resident #14's Comprehensive Care Plan included physician orders for hip precautions.2. The facility failed to ensure that Resident #14's Comprehensive Care Plan included physician orders for her toe-touch weight bearing status.3. The facility failed to ensure that Resident 14's Comprehensive Care Plan included physician orders for Full Code Advanced Status. These failures could place residents at risk of having received inadequate interventions not individualized to their care…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-09-13 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — patternSafeguard 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, record review, and interview, the facility failed to maintain medical records on each resident that are accurately documented for 1 (Resident #1) of 5 residents reviewed for administration. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 had accurate TAR documentation in the EHR on 09/10/25 for Resident #1's blood sugar checks, Humalog Kwik pen injection, and insulin lispro 100 unit/ml injection by LVN A . The non-compliance was identified as past non-compliance (PNC). The PNC began on 09/10/25 and ended on 09/12/25 and the facility had corrected the non-compliance before the state's investigation began. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving the proper care or treatment and services.Findings included:Record review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 09/12/25 reflected, she was a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted [DATE] and diagnosed with but not limited to: Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (chronic disease characterized by high blood sugar) with diabetic chronic kidney…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-05-16 · tag 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 label drugs and biologicals used in the facility in accordance with currently accepted professional principles, and include the appropriate accessory and cautionary instructions, and the expiration date when applicable for the facility's two (400 and 500 halls) of four medication cart reviewed for storage. The facility failed to ensure Residents #23, #13, #68's insulin lispro vials, Resident #95's insulin lispro pen, Resident #103's glargibe-yfgn insulin vial and Resident #68 Tresiba flex touch insulin were dated when opened. This failure could affect residents and staff resulting in diminished effectiveness, and not receiving the therapeutic benefits of the medications. The findings included: Observation on [DATE] at 12:21 PM with LVN Q in the 400-hallway's medication cart revealed vials of insulin and insulin pen without an open date. The insulin lispro 100unit/ml vials were for Residents #23, #13, and #95. The insulin lispro 100units/ml…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-05-16 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #209) reviewed for infection control. LVN R failed to wear the appropriate PPE while assessing Resident #209's wound. This failure could place residents at risk of being infected by staff in contact with other residents with infections. Findings included: Review of Resident #209's face sheet dated 05/16/25 revealed she was a [AGE] year-old female, she was admitted on [DATE]. Admitting diagnoses included, endocarditis, type 2 diabetes, end stage renal failure and hypertension. Review of Resident #209's care plan dated 05/13/25 reflected, the resident had a diabetic ulcer to left heel related to diabetes. Goal, the resident will have no complications related to ulcer. Review of the…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-20 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, 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 timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that were identified in the comprehensive assessment for 1 of 5 residents, (Resident #1) reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1's care plan reflected the resident's primary diagnosis of cancer. This failure could place the residents at risk of not receiving adequate care. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet, date 08/19/24, reflected Resident #1 was a [AGE] year-old male, who admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #1 had a diagnoses which included Malignant Neoplasm of Right Kidney (cancer of the kidney), Pneumonia (bacterial infection of the lungs), Acute Respiratory Failure with Hypoxia (low oxygen level of body tissue), Severe Protein/Calorie…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-20 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the resident was free of any significant medication errors for one (Resident #1) of five residents reviewed in that: The facility failed to ensure Admitting Nurse E added Resident #1's medication order correctly for Cabozantinib, a medication for cancer, to the electronic record. As a result, the facility did not administer the correct amount of Cabozantinib to Resident #1 from 07/11/24-07/13/24. These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving their medications as ordered or possible illness. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet, date 08/19/24, reflected Resident #1 was a [AGE] year-old male, who admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #1 had a diagnoses which included Malignant Neoplasm of Right Kidney (cancer of the kidney), Pneumonia (bacterial infection of the lungs), Acute Respiratory Failure with Hypoxia (low oxygen level of body tissue), Severe Protein/Calorie Malnutrition, Type 2 Diabetes…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-18 · 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to treat each resident with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life, recognizing each resident's individuality for two (Residents #71 and #62) of 12 residents reviewed for dignity. The facility failed to ensure Residents #71 and #62 had the right to a dignified existence when staff stood over the resident while feeding the resident. This failure could affect the residents by placing them at risk for a loss of dignity, decreased self-worth and decreased self-esteem. Findings included: Review of the face sheet for Resident #62 revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Primary diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease with early onset and secondary diagnosis and Type 1 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia (high blood glucose). Review of Resident #62's MDS quarterly assessment, dated 01/09/2024, revealed Resident #62 had a…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-01-30 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
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 4 of 5 residents (Residents #1, #2, #3 and #4,) reviewed for infection. 1. LVN C failed to clean the blood pressure cuff between Residents #1, #2, #3 and #4. 2. LVN C failed to clean the pulse oximeter between Residents #3 and #4. These failures could place residents at risk of cross contamination and exposure to infectious diseases. The findings include: During an observation on 01/30/24 from 9:06 AM through 10:35 AM of blood pressure checks, pulse oximeter checks, and medication pass with LVN C revealed the following: * LVN C sanitized hands, walked into Resident #1's room, put on gloves and did not sanitize the blood pressure cuff. LVN C took Resident #1's blood pressure, disposed of gloves and placed the blood pressure machine on top of medication cart. LVN C administered medications and washed…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-08-10 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program that must include, at a minimum, written standards, policies, and procedures for the program which included standard and transmission-based precautions to be followed to prevent spread of infections for one (LVN A) of seven staff reviewed for infection control. LVN A failed to perform hand hygiene and between glove changes while providing wound care for Resident #1. This failure could affect residents by placing them at risk for the spread of infection. Findings included: An observation on 08/10/23 at 11:42 AM of LVN A performing wound care for Resident #1 with the DON present revealed, LVN A entered the resident's room and placed a wax paper barrier on the resident's bedside table between the table and her wound care supplies. LVN A sanitized her hands with ABHR and donned gloves and removed wound dressings to Resident #1's bilateral feet. Resident #1 had wounds noted to both the right and left 5th toes. LVN A disposed of dressing and her gloves and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“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
$29,022 in federal fines across 3 penalties.
- $11,879 — penalty dated 2025-08-28
- $8,976 — penalty dated 2024-10-24
- $8,167 — penalty dated 2024-04-18
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 / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JSC LAKE HIGHLANDS I SENIOR LIVING, LP | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 03/25/2009 |
| JAVELIN GROUP FUNDING I, LP | Organization | 5% OR GREATER INDIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | NO PERCENTAGE PROVIDED | since 09/01/2016 |
| VILLAGE SENIOR CARE LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/21/2026 |
| KAMRAN, MUBASHIR | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/01/2025 |
| WOLFE, KELLY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 09/01/2016 |
| EDEN, KEVIN | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/01/2020 |
| NAUL, ALAN | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 05/01/2020 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 10 rows in the source record cover these 7 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
3 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
This home reported $1.2M paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report.
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 676268. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-05-16, 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.