De Leon Nursing and Rehabilitation
809 East Navarro Avenue, De Leon, TX 76444 · Government - Hospital district · 98 certified beds · (254) 893-2075 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.
- a strong health-inspection score (5/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no harm-level citations in the current inspection record
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- its payroll-based staffing 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 | 5 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 1 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Location & what’s nearby
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 4 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
| Measure | This home | State avg | Typical state | vs typical state |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased | 5.3% | 15.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 0.0% | 3.0% | 5.4% | check this* — see note marked star below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.3% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.0% | 0.8% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 5.5% | 2.4% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 4.1% | 3.3% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 2.0% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 23.4% | 18.0% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 0.9% | 3.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 13.9% | 13.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 2.6% | 9.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.0% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 88.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 14.4% | 25.7% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 10.5% | 12.3% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.98 | 2.17 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.29 | 2.06 | 1.80 | better |
* 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.
47.7% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 37 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.39 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 67% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 0% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 47.7%CMS range 34.5–64.8 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.6%CMS range 5.8–14.3 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 0.0% | 0.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened | 0.0% | 1.9% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.65 | 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 98 beds and averages 47.7 residents a day — about 49% occupied, or roughly 50 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 2.95 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.48 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.58 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 2.66 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.06 on weekdays — 13% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.53 to 0.36 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
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 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.
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.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2025-11-19 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to properly store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed. The facility failed to ensure food stored in the kitchen was sealed and/or labeled properly in the facility's freezers #1 and #2. This failure could place residents that eat out of the kitchen at risk for contamination and food borne illnesses.During an observation on 9/23/25 at 9:45 AM, the facility kitchen revealed Freezer #1:1 bag of chicken legs was unsealed and opened to air.,1 bar of butter was unsealed/not dated and open to air. Freezer #2:1 bag of hushpuppies was unsealed and open to air.1 bag of corn nuggets was unsealed and opened in the air.1 bag of chicken thighs was unsealed and open to air.1 box of burritos was unsealed and opened to air.A sheet tray of red velvet chocolate chip cookies was open to the air. During an observation and interview on 9/23/25 at 9:45 AM, of freezers #1 and #2 revealed opened box of food, the DM stated that she would not…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-08-20 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for food safety. The facility failed to provide paper towels at the kitchen hand washing sink. The facility failed to label stored foods with a description and/or open date. The facility failed to store foods with lids that covered the food. These failures could place residents that eat out of the kitchen at risk for food borne illnesses. The findings included: During an observation on 08/18/2024 between 02:10 PM and 2:30 of the kitchen revealed: 1. The hand washing sink in the kitchen did not have paper towels available to dry hands. 2. An opened container of cake frosting was sitting in a sealed see through bag with no opened date in 1 of 1 dry storage. 3. An opened bag of cream soup base was in a sealed see through bag with no opened date in 1 of 1 dry storage. 4. A circular frozen breaded product was in a sealed see through bag in 1 of 2 freezers with no description or…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-08-20 · tag F0644 — patternCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to refer all level II residents and all residents with newly evident or possible serious mental disorder, intellectual disability, or a related condition for level II resident review upon a significant change in status assessment for 3 of 14 residents (Resident #5, Resident #12, and Resident #37) reviewed for PASRR. The facility failed to follow up with the LA for PASRR Level II determination when Resident #5, Resident #12, and Resident #37s PASRR Level 1 Screening reflected they were positive for mental illness. This failure could place the residents with a documented mental illness, intellectual and/or developmental disability at risk for not receiving needed services. Findings included: Resident #5 Record review of Resident #5's electronic face sheet dated 08/20/2024 revealed an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #5 had diagnoses of psychosis with onset date of 01/22/2021 and diagnosis of major depressive disorder added…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-08-20 · 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 observations, interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needs respiratory care, is provided such care, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, the residents' goals and preferences for 2 of 5 (Resident # 6 and Resident #17) reviewed for oxygen therapy. The facility failed to ensure that oxygen tubing and nasal cannula were placed in plastic bag for 2 of 2 residents (Resident #6 and Resident #17) when not in use. These failures placed residents of the facility at risk for respiratory illnesses. Findings included: During an observation on 08/18/2024 at 2:25 PM RM [ROOM NUMBER] revealed Oxygen tubing with nasal cannula on bedside table and not in a plastic bag. Resident #6 was not in the room at the time. Resident #6 During a review of Resident #6 's electronic face sheet revealed: [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of Anorexia (eating disorder), Dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), Cognitive…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-20 · tag F0805 — failed to prepare food in a form residents can eat — isolatedEnsure each resident receives and the facility provides food prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs.
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 food was prepared in a form designed to meet individual needs for 1 of 14 residents (Resident #22) reviewed for meals. The facility failed to ensure that Resident #22 was served a pureed bowl of melon, instead of a bowl of regular melon. This deficient practice could affect residents by placing them at risk for choking and weight loss. The findings were: Record review of Resident #22's electronic face sheet revealed: [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE]. Diagnoses include-Alzheimer's Disease (a progressive disease that destroys memory and other mental functions), and Abnormal weight loss. Record review of Resident #22's Quarterly MDS dated [DATE] revealed: Section C-Cognitive Patterns Resident #22 had a BIMS score of 00 indicating had severe cognitive impairment; Section K- Swallowing/Nutritional Status Resident #22 was on mechanically altered diet. Record review of Resident #22's Care plan dated 08/18/2024 revealed:…
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 · D2024-08-20 · tag F0839 — isolatedEmploy staff that are licensed, certified, or registered in accordance with state laws.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure professional staff was certified in accordance with applicable State laws for 1 (NA B) of 15 personnel reviewed for licensed nursing. The facility failed to ensure NA B had become a Certified Nurse Aide by passing her certification test. These failures could place residents at risk of being provided care by staff who are not qualified per state law. Findings included: Record review of NA B's employee file revealed a hire date of 08/30/2022 and no evidence of CNA certification. During an interview on 08/20/24 at 3:21 PM the DON stated that NA B was a NA and not a CNA. The DON stated NA B was currently enrolled in an online course. The DON stated NA B had failed the CNA certification exam twice before and had one more attempt. The DON stated her expectation was for her to complete the online course and pass her test in a timely manner. The DON did not think there was an effect on residents because NA B always worked with a CNA (who was certified). The DON stated what led to failure of NA not being certified was she…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-20 · 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 observations, interviews and record reviews, 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 1 of 1 residents LVN A feeding 1of 1 residents (Resident #22) did not perform hand hygiene after touching resident and wiping resident mouth. The facility failed to ensure proper hand hygiene when feeding a resident (Resident #22). These failures placed residents of the facility at risk of infections from respiratory care and dining. Findings included: During a record review on 08/20/2024 of Resident #22's electronic face sheet revealed: [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE]. Diagnosis include-Alzheimer's Disease (a progressive disease that destroys memory and other mental functions), Abnormal weight loss. During a record review on 08/20/2024 of Resident #22's Physician Orders dated 08/01/2024 revealed: Fortified/Enhanced…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-11-15 · 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure an infection prevention and control program designed to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases was established and maintained for infection control related to COVID-19 (a virus that is spread from person to person causing mild to severe respiratory symptoms) for 16 of 18 residents reviewed. Multiple asymptomatic residents tested positive for COVID-19 after dietary staff tested positive for COVID-19, by not taking preventative measures. This failure has the potential to affect residents by placing them at an increased and unnecessary risk of exposure to communicable diseases and infections, particularly COVID-19. Findings include: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet dated 10/15/23 revealed an admission date of 6/14/23 with a BIMS of 6 and diagnoses which included: Dementia, kidney disease, and hypertension. Record review of Resident #2's face sheet dated 10/15/23 revealed an admission date of 1/28/22 with a BIMS of 5 and diagnoses which included: heat disease, kidney disease,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2023-06-28 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for kitchen sanitation. The facility failed to ensure kitchen staff practiced proper hand hygiene. This deficient practice could place residents at risk for food borne illness and cross-contamination. Findings include: During an observation on 06/26/2023 at 11:20 AM, DA B exited the kitchen without removing gloves. DA B then reentered the kitchen with gloves on hands while holding a bowl of pudding. DA B did not wash her hands or change gloves. DA B then opened the refrigerator with gloved hands, placed the bowl of pudding into the refrigerator. DA B then scratched her head underneath her hair net then rubbed her nose with the same gloved hands. DA B then reached into her pocket with her gloved hand, pulled out a pen, wrote on a label, and placed the label onto another bowl of pudding before placing it into the refrigerator. DA B then grabbed a cup from a rack with the same…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2023-06-28 · 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, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure, in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices, maintain medical records that were complete and accurate for 2 of 3 residents (Resident #36 and Resident #149) reviewed for resident records. The facility failed to document the verification of placement of a wanderguard each shift, and the function of resident's device daily for Resident #36 and Resident #149. This failure could place residents at risk of residents having errors in care and treatment. Findings include: Review of Resident #36's face sheet, dated 06/28/2023, revealed an [AGE] year-old male admitted on [DATE] with the following diagnosis Dementia. review of Resident # 36's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], revealed: Section C- Cognitive Behavior a BIMS score of 8 meant he had moderate cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #36's electronic medical record revealed no evidence of documentation of verification of placement of a wanderguard documented each…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-06-28 · 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 the resident environment remained free of accident hazards and the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 1 of 12 residents (Resident #199) reviewed for accidents and supervision. The facility failed to ensure there was adequate supervision while Resident #199 was smoking. This failure could place residents at risk for injury due to the lack of supervision provided by the facility. Findings include: Record review of Resident #199's electronic face sheet revealed Resident #199 was an [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #199 had diagnoses which included Dementia, Alzheimer's and Depression. Record review of Resident #199 Comprehensive assessment, dated 06/09/2023, revealed a BIMS of 09, which indicated moderately impaired cognition. Resident #199 was a tobacco user. Record review of Resident #199 Comprehensive Care Plan,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2023-06-28 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolatedEnsure 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
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to assure that medications were secure and inaccessible to unauthorized staff and residents for one of two medication carts reviewed for medication storage. The facility failed to ensure medication supplies were secured or attended by authorized staff when the medication cart was left unlocked and unattended. This failure could result in access to medications by unauthorized staff or residents leading to possible harm or drug diversion. The findings Included: During an observation on 06/26/23 at 02:09 p.m., a medication cart was observed to be unlocked and unattended outside the nurse's station near Hall 3. Residents were observed passing by the cart. Review of the content of the medication cart revealed the cart contained the following: analgesics (non-narcotic and narcotic pain relievers), antacids (relieve heartburn), antianxiety drugs (have a calming effect and relax muscles), antiarrhythmics (controls irregular heartbeats), antibiotics (for infections), anticoagulants and thrombolytics (prevent blood clots),…
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.
- No harm found · C2024-08-20 · tag F0732 — widespreadPost nurse staffing information every day.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based upon observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure staffing information was posted in a prominent place readily accessible to residents and visitors for 2 of 3 days reviewed for nursing services and postings. The facility failed to ensure daily staffing information was posted in a prominent place on 08/18/2024 and 08/19/2024. This failure places residents, their families, and visitors at risk of not having access to information regarding staffing and facility census. Findings include: During an observation of postings in the facility on 08/18/2024 at 2:00 PM, revealed no daily nursing staffing information posted at the nurses' station or any other place in the facility. During an observation of postings in the facility on 08/19/2024 at 8:30 AM, revealed no daily nursing staffing information posted at nurses' station or any other place in the facility. During an interview on 08/20/2024 at 4:30 PM, the DON stated she did not know she was supposed post the daily staffing. The DON stated she did feel that this would not cause any harm to residents. 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.
- No harm found · B2024-08-20 · tag F0582 — patternGive residents notice of Medicaid/Medicare coverage and potential liability for services not covered.
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 each resident was informed before, or at the time of admission, and periodically during the residents stay, of services available in the facility and of changes for those services, which included changes for services not covered under Medicare/Medicaid for 2 of 14 residents (Resident #8 and Resident #30) reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to ensure Residents #8 and Resident #30 were given a paper copy of the NOMNC (notice of Medicare non coverage) with information on how to appeal the decision when residents were discharged from skilled services at the facility prior to covered days being exhausted. This failure could place residents at risk for not being aware of their right to appeal the decision to end Medicare coverage for skilled services, changes to provided services, and their financial responsibilities. Findings included: Resident #8 Record review of Resident 8's electronic face sheet dated 08/20/2024 revealed resident was…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.
- Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
- Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
- State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Fines & penalties
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Part of a chain
This home belongs to CREATIVE SOLUTIONS IN HEALTHCARE — 149 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →
| Rating | This home | Chain avg | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 5 of 5 | 2.1 | +2.9 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 5 of 5 | 2.7 | +2.3 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 1.1 | -0.1 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 5 of 5 | 3.2 | +1.8 vs chain |
The other 148 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.1★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 148; lowest-rated first.
A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| BOWERS, SEAN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 07/01/2024 |
| CISNEROS, ALFRED | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 02/18/2008 |
| COBB, TRAVIS | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 10/05/2022 |
| COOPER, STEPHEN | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 11/11/2022 |
| HARDIN, SHERRIE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 09/04/2024 |
| KERZEE, RICHARD | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 09/24/2007 |
| KORENEK, PATRICIA | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 05/05/2018 |
| SOECHTING, PAUL | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 11/22/2024 |
| STRACK, JOE | Individual | MANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODY | since 02/11/2022 |
| HUGGINS, LINDA | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 06/01/2022 |
| WILLIG, ZACHARY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | since 01/01/2025 |
| THOMPSON, JOHNNY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | since 01/01/2024 |
| DE LEON I ENTERPRISES LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/07/2025 |
| BLAKE, GARY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/01/2022 |
| BLAKE, MALISA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 06/01/2022 |
| DYSON, STARLA | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/14/2025 |
| MILLER, DWAYNE | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/01/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 19 rows in the source record cover these 17 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
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 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in TX
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 675319. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-11-19, 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.