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

The Hills Nursing & Rehabilitation

201 East Thompson Street, Decatur, TX 76234 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 110 certified beds · (940) 627-2165 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
Abuse/neglect citation on record (F0600) — cited Jul 20253 immediate-jeopardy citations1 immediate-jeopardy citation CMS recorded as corrected before the inspection ended (past non-compliance)$29,325 in federal fines
Insights

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

Worth asking about
  • it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Jul 2025
  • inspectors cited 3 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
  • inspectors recorded 1 serious finding 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
  • a high number of inspection citations overall (18) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
  • the CMS record shows $29,325 in federal fines (most recent 2025-04-30)
  • its facility-reported quality-measure score sits well above its independent inspection score
  • its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
  • its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
  • nursing-staff turnover (93%) runs well above the national median (45%)

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.

1/5
CMS overall
1 of 5
Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified 2 of 5
StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) 1 of 5
Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility 4 of 5

Worth a closer look. This home's quality-measure rating runs 2 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 — so a gap this large is worth reading the inspection record for.

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★★★ 4/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
609 Medical Center Dr · (940) 627-8020 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
1821 S Fm 51 · (855) 277-2979 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
1202 S FM 51 · (940) 627-6438 · Call to confirm hours
Park
Football Fields · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship

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

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Overall quality measures 4 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 5 of 5
Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital 3 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 3 to 1 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.

Overall rating1★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased28.4%15.8%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight2.1%3.0%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%0.3%0.9%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.5%0.8%2.0%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms5.3%2.4%6.5%worse than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.0%0.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury1.4%3.3%3.3%better
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened25.3%14.0%16.1%worse
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication17.2%18.0%18.9%typical
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%98.0%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers5.7%3.8%4.7%worse
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control20.6%13.4%21.2%typical
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table6.6%9.6%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication0.8%1.5%1.4%better
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine97.1%88.0%79.4%better
Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission36.5%25.7%22.6%worse
Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit13.4%12.3%12.0%worse
Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days0.982.171.67better
Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days0.742.061.80better

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.

55.1% 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 81 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

55.1%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
9.9%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
50.0%U.S. median 56.6%
Met the expected recovery
0.36U.S. median 0.31
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.13hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.18hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.06hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Met the expected recovery: 50.0% 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 36 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 0.36 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 62% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 17% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.

See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF55.1%CMS range 45.9–63.651.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF9.9%CMS range 6.8–14.510.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge50.0%56.6%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge52.8%52.8%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge50.0%50.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified57.7%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting95.8%100.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay1.9%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened0.0%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalization7.9%CMS range 4.5–14.57.1%Oct 2023–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.171.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS makes no comparison for this measure

From the CMS Skilled Nursing Facility Quality Reporting Program — Medicare short-stay outcomes, which is a different dataset from the long-stay quality measures above and describes a different set of residents. Where CMS risk-adjusts a measure we show its adjusted rate, and the CMS range beside it is the confidence interval CMS publishes: a home whose range is wide is a home with few stays, where one patient moves the number several points. Read the period column. These measures do not share a window — the claims-based ones (getting home, readmission, spending) lag by a year or more, because a stay has to finish and its claims settle before it can be counted. CMS’s call is CMS’s, not ours: it is the only place anyone tests whether this home differs from the national rate at all, and most homes on most measures do not. Two caveats on it. CMS tests only three of these measures — getting home, readmission, and infections that led to hospital; on the other nine it publishes a rate and no comparison, and rather than compute a verdict CMS declined to make, we say so in the column. And on readmission almost every home in the country lands on “no different”, so that row separates homes far less than getting-home does — which is why met the expected recovery, a measure CMS does not test but which spreads across the whole range, is called out above the table rather than left in this list. The U.S. median column is our own, taken across every home CMS publishes that measure for in this same file; it is not a CMS-published benchmark. Homes CMS gives no rate for are left out of it rather than counted as zero. Medicare spending per stay is a ratio, not a percentage — 1.00 means this home’s Medicare spending for a stay matched the national figure CMS compares it against, and it measures cost to Medicare, not quality of care.

Staffing

0.35
RN hours/ resident / day
1.02
LPN hours/ resident / day
1.37
Aide hours/ resident / day
2.74
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.29
RN hoursweekends
93.2%
Total nursing turnover
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 110 beds and averages 69.2 residents a day — about 63% occupied, or roughly 41 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 2.74 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.35 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.37 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 2.33 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 2.90 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.37 to 0.29 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 93% is well above the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.

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

4
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-02-26)
4
at the previous standard inspection (2024-11-20)

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

Inspection deficiencies

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

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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

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

  • Immediate jeopardy · K2025-04-30 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — pattern
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 2 of 3 residents (Residents #1 and #2) reviewed for accidents. 1. Driver A failed to secure Resident#1's wheelchair properly in the van, resulting in the resident hitting her head when the wheelchair tipped backwards during transport on 03/18/25. The resident was sent to the hospital but did not have any injuries. 2. Driver B failed to secure the safety strap on the lift when Resident #2 was being lowered. Driver B fell onto Resident #2 causing him to tip backwards in his wheelchair and hitting his head on the ground on 04/07/25. The resident was sent to the hospital where he was found to have an abrasion on his scalp but no serious injury. The noncompliance was identified as past noncompliance. The IJ began on 03/18/25 and ended on 04/07/25. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. The failures placed residents…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Past Non-Compliance
  • Immediate jeopardy · Kcited before2025-03-14 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — pattern
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on 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 timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs for 1 of 10 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to develop and implement a care plan for Resident #1 to address him being at risk for constipation which he was at increased risk for due to his diagnosis of cerebral palsy. This failure resulted in the facility staff not being aware of these risk factors for constipation and not implementing interventions to prevent the resident from having a fecal impaction of the rectum with associated stercoral colitis, which is a rare inflammatory colitis that occurs when impacted fecal material leads to distention of the colon and eventually hardened stool formation. An Immediate Jeopardy was identified on 03/13/25 at 10:00 AM. While the Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 03/14/25, 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Immediate jeopardy · K2025-03-14 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — pattern
    Provide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that received residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' choices based on the comprehensive assessment of a resident for 1 of 10 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed ensure Resident #1, who was at increased risk for constipation due to having cerebral palsy, had measures in place to monitor his bowel activity and to ensure physician ordered interventions were implemented when the resident did not have a bowel movement within 72 hours. This failure resulted in the resident being diagnosed in the hospital with fecal impaction of the rectum with associated stercoral colitis, which is a rare inflammatory colitis that occurs when impacted fecal material leads to distention of the colon and eventually hardened stool formation. Prior to the hospitilization, the resident had only had one bowel movement…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Immediate jeopardy · K2025-03-14 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — pattern
    Ensure 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 interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure that residents are free of any significant medication errors for 1 of 10 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for medications. The facility failed ensure Resident #1, who was at increased risk for constipation due to having cerebral palsy, was administered his physician-ordered Bisacodyl Rectal Suppository when he had only one bowel movement between 02/11/25 and 02/26/25. This failure resulted in the resident being diagnosed in the hospital with fecal impaction of the rectum with associated stercoral colitis, which is a rare inflammatory colitis that occurs when impacted fecal material leads to distention of the colon and eventually hardened stool formation. Prior to the hospitilization, the resident had only had one bowel movement between 02/11/25 and 02/26/25. An Immediate Jeopardy was identified on 03/13/25 at 10:00 AM. While the Immediate Jeopardy was removed on 03/14/25, the facility remained at the severity level of noncompliance that…

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

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2026-02-26 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — pattern
    Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure that a resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain grooming and personal care for 2 of 8 residents (Residents #13, and 55) reviewed for ADL care. The facility failed to ensure nail care, to include trimming and cleaning, was provided to Residents #13, and #55. The failure placed the residents at risk of hygiene and safety risks such as nail tearing, injury, and functional difficulties. Findings included: 1.Record review of Resident #13's Face Sheet, dated 02/26/26, reflected a [AGE] year-old male who admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Record review of Resident #13's Quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], reflected the resident had diagnoses that included: Cerebral Infarction with hemiplegia (Stroke resulting in paralysis of one side of body), Diabetes Mellitus (chronic condition in which the body does not regulate blood sugar levels), Lack of coordination, and unspecified…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-02-26 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based 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 8 residents (Resident #86) and 1 of 3 staff (HA C) reviewed for infection control. 1. A medical equipment provider failed to put on PPE prior to entering Resident #86's room, while the resident was on isolation for COVID-19. 2. The facility failed to ensure HA C performed hand hygiene between residents while passing meal trays on E Hall.This failure could place residents at risk of being infected by staff/providers in contact with other residents with infections. Findings included: 1. Review of Resident #86's admission MDS dated [DATE] reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The residents' diagnoses included cancer, atrial fibrillation (rapid, irregular,…

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

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-02-26 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on 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 includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #12) reviewed for care plans. The facility failed to ensure Resident #12's comprehensive care plan was updated to reflect his G-tube was changed in-house, as required. This failure could place the residents at risk of not receiving the necessary care and services needed. Findings included: Record review of Resident #12's Face Sheet, dated 02/26/26, reflected he was a [AGE] year-old male who admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Record review of Resident #12's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 12/2/25, reflected the resident had the following diagnoses: Cerebral Palsy (neurological disorder caused by damage to…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-02-26 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
    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 a resident with a pressure ulcer received necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new ulcers from developing for one (Resident #61) of three residents reviewed for pressure ulcers.The Wound Care Nurse failed to re-clean the wound to Resident #61's right heel after she put his foot down on the bed with the wound exposed to the drawsheet under the resident. This failure could place residents at risk for deterioration of existing wounds/skin injuries. Findings included:Review of Resident #61's quarterly MDS dated [DATE] reflected the resident was an [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The residents' diagnoses included heart failure, paraplegia, cognitive communication deficit, pressure ulcer of right buttock, and pressure ulcer of right heel. Resident #61 had a BIMS of 6 which indicated his cognition was severely…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2025-07-17 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — pattern
    Protect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
    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 residents had the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation for three of six residents (Residents #1, #3 and #2) reviewed for abuse.1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #3 did not kiss Resident #1 without her consent on 05/23/25.2. The facility failed to ensure LVN G did not yell at Resident #2. These failures could place residents at risk for injury or psychosocial harm. Findings included:1. Record review of Resident #1's admission Record, dated 07/17/25, reflected a [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE].Record review of Resident #1's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 07/01/25, reflected she had a BIMS score of 06, which indicated moderate cognitive impairment. Her active diagnoses included non-Alzheimer's dementia (the loss of memory and other intellectual functions severe enough to cause problems in one's abilities to perform daily activities), anxiety…

    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.

    Freedom from Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2025-02-19 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolated
    Immediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to immediately notify the resident's representative when there was a need to alter treatment for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for notification of change. The facility failed to notify Resident #1's representative when the medication, Pramipexole (Mirapex), was added to her drug regimen on 01/01/25 to treat restless leg syndrome. This failure could place residents at risk for a delay in treatment and not receiving proper care due to failure to notify resident representative. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected the resident was [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included coronary artery disease (a condition where the arteries that supply blood to the heart become narrowed or blocked), high blood pressure, hemiplegia (a condition that causes weakness or paralysis to one side of the body), anxiety disorder, depression, and pain. Resident #1 had a BIMS…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-11-20 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to prepare, store, distribute, and serve foods in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in the facility's only kitchen. The facility failed to ensure pork chops stored in the facility freezer were covered to prevent contamination. This failure placed residents, who received food from the kitchen, at risk for food contamination and food borne illness. Findings included: Observation of the facility freezer on 11/18/24 at 9:04 AM revealed uncovered pork chops stored in a labeled, metal pan. Interview on 11/20/24 at 3:34 PM with the [NAME] revealed all items in the facility refrigerators and freezers should be covered, labeled, and dated. The [NAME] stated the importance of covering foods was to prevent contamination. The [NAME] added that residents could get sick if they ate contaminated food. The [NAME] said he would report uncovered, labeled, and dated to his dietary manager. The [NAME] stated he was last in-serviced on food storage about a month ago. Interview on 11/20/24 at 3:37 PM with…

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

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-11-20 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolated
    Honor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident was treated with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #3) reviewed for dignity. The facility failed to allow Residents #31 to keep his electric wheelchair when he admitted to the facility. This failure could place residents at risk for a loss of dignity, decreased self-worth and decreased self-esteem. Findings included: Record review of Resident #31's quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. His diagnoses included heart disease, end stage renal disease (a terminal illness that occurs when the kidneys can no longer function properly), and stroke. Resident #31 had a BIMS of 12 which indicated his cognition was moderately impaired. The MDS further indicated the resident had impairment on one side to his…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-11-20 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolated
    Provide safe, appropriate dialysis care/services for a resident who requires such services.
    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 who required dialysis received such services, consistent with professional standards of practice for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #47) reviewed for dialysis. The facility failed to ensure post-dialysis assessments were completed for Resident #47 after they returned from dialysis treatment. This failure could place residents at risk of inadequate post dialysis care resulting in harm to the resident. Findings included: Record review of Resident #47's face sheet, dated 11/20/24, reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #47 had diagnoses which included encephalopathy (brain disease that alters brain function or structure), end stage renal disease (when kidneys suddenly become unable to filter waste products from blood), acute kidney failure, fluid overload, and difficulty in walking. Record review of Resident #47's Nursing Home PA PPS Discharge Item Set, dated…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-11-20 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolated
    Ensure 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 ensure all drugs and biologicals were stored in locked compartments for 1 of 4 medication carts (Hall C Medication Cart) reviewed for storage, in that: MA A failed to ensure the Hall C Medication cart was locked when she left it unattended for approximately two minutes. This deficient practice placed residents at risk of misappropriation of medications or harm due to accidental ingestion of unprescribed medications. Findings included: Observation on 11/19/24 at 8:00 AM revealed the Hall C medication cart was observed unlocked and unattended on Hall C outside of the dining room for approximately two minutes. The medication cart was not within view of the dining room. Approximately 100 different types of medications including medications such as antihypertensives, anticonvulsants, and anticoagulants, were accessible inside the unlocked cart including medications in blister packs, bottles, and vials. The narcotics were noted as locked in a drawer with a second lock and were not accessible. MA A returned 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.

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-09-28 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — pattern
    Develop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents comprehensive care plan was reviewed and revised after each assessment, including both the comprehensive and quarterly review assessments for 3 of 14 residents (Residents #5, #7 and #104) reviewed for care plans, in that: The facility failed to ensure Residents #5, #7, #104's selected resuscitaiton statuses were updated on their care plans. This deficient practice could affect residents at the facility and place them at-risk of their advanced directives not being honored. Findings included: Review of Resident #5's face sheet, dated 09/28/23, revealed the resident was an [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with (acute) exacerbation, essential hypertension (high blood pressure), acute respiratory failure with hypoxia (low oxygen), and pneumonia. Resident #5 face sheet reflected advance directive of DNR. Review of…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-09-28 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — pattern
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based 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 two (Residents #121 and #122) of ten residents observed during medication pass. Reviewed for infection control, in that: 1. Medication Aide C failed to clean the blood pressure wrist cuff after checking vitals of Residents #121 and #122. 2. Medication Aide C failed to disinfect the medication cart prior to it being used. These failures could affect the 4 residents on the Quarantine Hall who received medications by Medication Aide C by placing them at risk for spread of infection through cross-contamination of pathogens and illness. Findings included: Record review of Resident #121's undated face sheet, revealed that of a [AGE] year-old white female admitted [DATE] with a history that included Cerebrovascular…

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

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-09-28 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolated
    Ensure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
    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 residents fed by enteral means received the appropriate treatment and services to prevent complications of enteral feedings for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #12) reviewed for tube feeding. The facility failed to follow physician order's for Resident #12 when cleaning the resident's enteral stoma site by not applying a gauze dressing. This deficient practice could place residents who require enteral feedings at risk for weight loss, dehydration, metabolic abnormalities, and hospitalizations. Findings included: Record review of Resident #12's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 07/01/23, revealed the resident was an [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dysphagia oropharyngeal phase (difficulty swallowing) and gastrostomy status (surgical opening into the stomach). MDS revealed a BIMS score of 0 which indicated Resident #12 had severe cognitive impairment. 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-09-28 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolated
    Provide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents were provided with respiratory care consistent with professional standards for 1 of 6 residents (Residents #5) reviewed for respiratory care in that: Resident #5's humidifier bottle attached to the oxygen concentrator was empty and had not been changed since 09/17/23. These deficient practices could affect residents who received oxygen with inadequate oxygen support, infections and could result in a decline in health. Findings included: Review of Resident #5's face sheet, dated 09/28/23, revealed the resident was an [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with acute exacerbation, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, and pneumonia. Review of Resident #5's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 07/23/23, revealed the resident had a BIMS score of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

“Cited before” means this same F-tag appears on at least one other survey date in the record we hold — counting complaint investigations as well as standard surveys, with no time limit. It is our own read of the data, not CMS’s: CMS uses repeat deficiency as a formal term tied to consecutive standard surveys, and that is a narrower test than this one. A tag marked here may or may not meet it.

Worried about a resident here? There are three different people you can turn to, and they do different jobs:
  • Long-Term Care Ombudsman — a free, confidential advocate for the resident. They act only with the resident’s consent and work to resolve the problem. Find yours at theconsumervoice.org/get_help.
  • Adult Protective Services — the state agency that investigates suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. Not sure of your state’s APS number? The federal Eldercare Locator will route you: 1-800-677-1116 or eldercare.acl.gov.
  • State survey agency — the regulator that licenses and inspects the home. Every state has an official nursing-home complaint line and most take complaints online; the Ombudsman or Eldercare Locator can connect you.
Not sure where to start, or need other help? Dial 2-1-1 for local resources — and if a call is hard or impossible for you, many local 211s also take a text (send your ZIP code to 898-211) or a web chat at 211.org; both vary by area, and 211.org will show what yours offers. Deaf or hard of hearing: dial 711 for the telecommunications relay service, then any number above. In an emergency, call 911.
It is illegal for a facility to retaliate against a resident or family for reporting a concern: federal law gives a resident the right to voice grievances — to the home or to any outside agency — without discrimination or reprisal (42 CFR §483.10(j)(1)). You may report anonymously.

Fines & penalties

$29,325 in federal fines across 2 penalties.

  • $15,151 — penalty dated 2025-04-30
  • $14,174 — penalty dated 2025-03-14

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

Part of a chain

This home belongs to 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 →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 1 of 52.1-1.1 vs chain
Health inspection 2 of 52.7-0.7 vs chain
Staffing 1 of 51.1-0.1 vs chain
Quality measures 4 of 53.2+0.8 vs chain
The other 148 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.1★, per CMS)
1 of 5Afton Oaks Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterHouston, TX 1 of 5Arlington Heights Health and Rehabilitation CenterFort Worth, TX 1 of 5Beltline Healthcare CenterGarland, TX 1 of 5Bluebonnet Nursing & RehabilitationKarnes City, TX 1 of 5Bluebonnet Point WellnessBullard, TX 1 of 5Brentwood Terrace Healthcare And RehabilitationParis, TX 1 of 5Buena Vida Nursing and Rehab-San AntonioSan Antonio, TX 1 of 5Cottonwood Nursing & RehabilitationDenton, TX 1 of 5Countryview Nursing & RehabilitationTerrell, TX 1 of 5Dogwood Trails ManorWoodville, TX 1 of 5Downtown Health and Rehabilitation CenterFort Worth, TX 1 of 5Estates Healthcare and Rehabilitation CenterFort Worth, TX 1 of 5Fair Park Health & Rehabilitation CenterDallas, TX 1 of 5Five Points Nursing & Rehabilitation of College StCollege Station, TX 1 of 5Five Points at Lake Highlands Nursing and RehabDallas, TX 1 of 5Five Points of PflugervillePflugerville, TX 1 of 5Franklin Heights Nursing & RehabilitationEl Paso, TX 1 of 5Gilmer Nursing & RehabilitationGilmer, TX 1 of 5Grace Pointe Wellness CenterEl Paso, TX 1 of 5Graham Oaks Care CenterGraham, TX 1 of 5Granbury Care CenterGranbury, TX 1 of 5Greenhill VillasMount Pleasant, TX 1 of 5Heritage At Longview Healthcare CenterLongview, TX 1 of 5Huebner Creek Health & Rehabilitation CenterSan Antonio, TX 1 of 5Interlochen Health and Rehabilitation CenterArlington, TX 1 of 5Kenedy Health & RehabilitationKenedy, TX 1 of 5Kennedy Health & RehabLufkin, TX 1 of 5Lake Lodge Nursing & RehabilitationLake Worth, TX 1 of 5Lampstand Nursing and RehabilitationBryan, TX 1 of 5Lancaster Nursing & RehabilitationLancaster, TX 1 of 5Marine Creek Nursing & RehabilitationFort Worth, TX 1 of 5Mesa Vista Inn Health CenterSan Antonio, TX 1 of 5Mountain View Health & RehabilitationEl Paso, TX 1 of 5Navasota Nursing & RehabilitationNavasota, TX 1 of 5Normandy Terrace Nursing & Rehabilitation CenterSan Antonio, TX 1 of 5North Pointe Nursing and RehabilitationWatauga, TX 1 of 5Park Place Care CenterGeorgetown, TX 1 of 5Parkview Manor Nursing and RehabilitationWeimar, TX 1 of 5Peach Tree PlaceWeatherford, TX 1 of 5Pebble Creek Nursing CenterEl Paso, TX

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 / managerTypeRoleSince
HUGGINS, LINDAIndividualW-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEEsince 06/01/2022
MAK, DAVIDIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 05/17/2021
DECATUR I ENTERPRISES LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 06/01/2022
BLAKE, GARYIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 06/01/2022
BLAKE, MALISAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 06/01/2022

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

1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.

Follow the money — this home’s finances

Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.

$5.1M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
-2.4%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 43%Medicare 13%Other / private 44%

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

$261per resident / day
operating cost
$7,922per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$255per day
avg. revenue, all payers

Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.

What families pay in TX

Paying with Medicaid

This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Texas Medicaid page.

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

Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.

Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 676004. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-26, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →

Not a government site. Eldercare Lens is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare, or any government agency. The star ratings, citations, and inspection wording on this page are reproduced from the public CMS record; the plain-English summaries, tiers, and comparisons around them are ours. We do not speak for CMS, and CMS has not reviewed this page. For the official record, go to Medicare Care Compare. How we’re funded →

Are you this operator? If the record here is out of date, or misses what you have since fixed, tell us and we will look: hello@eldercarelens.com. We reproduce the public CMS record and cannot change what it says — corrections to the underlying data go through CMS and your state survey agency — but we will correct anything we have got wrong about it, and we will say so on the page.

What to do next