Avir at Memorial
1300 Memorial Dr, Denison, TX 75020 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 136 certified beds · (903) 465-7442 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- fewer deficiencies at its most recent standard inspection than at the one before — a sign of improvement
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited May 2026
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0607) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 2 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (37) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $47,097 in federal fines (most recent 2024-08-12)
- 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)
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 | 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
Open in Google Maps ↗ · Directions ↗ · Larger map ↗
Nearest of each type, straight-line distance. Hospitals come from the CMS Hospital General Information registry; everything else from Overture Maps (public data). Hospital and park hours are typical — call ahead to confirm.
Quality measures — how residents actually fare
| Overall quality measures | 4 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| 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 held steady at 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.
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 | 9.5% | 15.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.1% | 3.0% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 0.0% | 0.3% | 0.9% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 0.5% | 0.8% | 2.0% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 0.0% | 2.4% | 6.5% | check this* — see note marked star 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 | 5.6% | 3.3% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 5.0% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 11.4% | 18.0% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 96.4% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 4.2% | 3.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 8.5% | 13.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 13.5% | 9.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 5.1% | 1.5% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 67.7% | 88.0% | 79.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 18.1% | 25.7% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 10.1% | 12.3% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 2.11 | 2.17 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.49 | 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.
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 22 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 0.50 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 81% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 16% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 12.1%CMS range 8.4–15.9 | 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 | 50.0% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 50.0% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 50.0% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | 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 | 8.4%CMS range 4.6–12.7 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.26 | 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 136 beds and averages 58.5 residents a day — about 43% occupied, or roughly 78 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.43 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.44 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.90 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 2.96 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.62 on weekdays — 18% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.52 to 0.25 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.
37 citations, most serious first. The 12 most serious are shown; the remaining 25 are one tap away and print in full.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2024-08-12 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — patternHonor the resident's right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment, including but not limited to receiving treatment and supports for daily living safely.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure residents had the right to a safe, clean, comfortable and homelike environment for secure unit dining room, main dining room and for 14 of 27 residents (Resident #2, Resident #39, Resident #12, Resident #13, Resident #14, Resident #17, Resident #22, Resident #25, Resident #28, Resident #34, Resident #35, Resident #43, Resident #47, Resident #48) reviewed for environment and resident rights, in that, The facility failed to provide housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to maintain a sanitary, orderly, and comfortable interior and did not ensure resident rooms were clean, sanitary and free of food debris and drink spills to prevent ants, gnats and flies. There were ants, gnats, flies in resident rooms and resulted in 102 ant bites on Resident #2's upper middle chest, over the right breast, right side of the neck, right shoulder, right arm, and right elbow. An IJ was identified on 08/08/24. The IJ template was provided on…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · Kcited before2024-08-12 · tag F0925 — failed to control pests — patternMake sure there is a pest control program to prevent/deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an effective pest control program to keep the facility free from pests for 16 of 26 residents (Resident #2, Resident #13, Resident #17, Resident #25, Resident #28, Resident #39, Resident#44 and 9 Confidential Group Residents) reviewed for pest control, in that: 1. The facility failed to ensure an effective pest control program was in place to keep ants out of resident rooms, resulting in 102 ant bites on Resident #2's upper middle chest, over the right breast, right side of the neck, right shoulder, right arm, and right elbow. 2. The facility failed to maintain an effective pest control to address the outside of hall 100 and hall 200 for ant activity. The facility failed to ensure resident secure unit common area windows were free of ants on 08/06/24 and 08/07/24. 3. The facility failed to ensure Resident #13 and #17's room was free of pests and failed to ensure their window was closed. 4. The facility failed to ensure Resident…
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 before2026-05-03 · 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
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 to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for two (Resident #1, Resident #2) of five residents reviewed for infection control. -The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 and Resident #2, who were on Enhanced Barrier Precautions, were protected as evidenced by nursing staff not wearing personal protective equipment during care. This failure placed all residents at risk for the spread of infections and decreased quality of life.Findings include: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet dated 05/02/2026, reflected the resident was a [AGE] year old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #1 had DX which included: nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage (stroke), encephalopathy (overall brain dysfunction), hypertension (high blood pressure), congestive heart…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-05-03 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to protect the resident's right to be free from neglect when (Resident #1) was not provided with goods and services to avoid harm when LVN C observed previous shift had not started feeding pump that required scheduled enteral feeding of food and water for 1 of 2 residents requiring tube feedings. -The facility failed to ensure one (Resident #1) of two residents, received required enteral food and hydration according to physician orders. This failure placed two of two residents requiring enteral food and hydration administration due to inability to orally swallow fluids, at risk of being dehydrated.Findings include: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet dated 05/02/2026, reflected the resident was a [AGE] year old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #1 had DX which included: nontraumatic intracerebral hemorrhage (stroke), encephalopathy (overall brain dysfunction), hypertension (high blood pressure), congestive heart failure…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-12-03 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolatedReasonably accommodate the needs and preferences of each 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 observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure the right to reside and receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of needs and preferences for 1 (Resident #1) of 12 residents reviewed for reasonable accommodation of needs. The facility failed to ensure the call light system in Resident #1's room was in a position accessible to the resident on 12/02/2025. This failure could place the residents at risk of being unable to obtain assistance when needed and help in the event of an emergency.Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's Face Sheet, dated 12/03/2025, reflected the resident was an [AGE] year-old male who admitted on [DATE]. Resident #1 had diagnoses of atherosclerotic heart disease (disease that affects arteries supplying blood to the heart muscle) and diabetes mellitus (the body does not use insulin properly which leads to elevated blood glucose levels). Resident #1 received hospice care services.Record review of Resident #1's Quarterly MDS…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-12-03 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure that residents, who needed respiratory care, were provided such care consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences for 2 (Resident #2 and Resident #3) of 10 residents reviewed for respiratory care.The facility failed to ensure Resident #2's oxygen tubing (flexible tube used to deliver oxygen to the nose through two prongs) was properly stored when not in use on 12/02/2025.The facility failed to ensure Resident #3's oxygen tubing was properly stored when not in use on 12/02/2025.These failures could place residents at risk for respiratory infection and not having their respiratory needs met.Findings included: Resident #2Record review of Resident #2's Face Sheet, dated 12/03/2025, reflected a [AGE] year-old female who admitted on [DATE]. The resident had diagnoses which included COPD (lung condition that makes it difficult to breathe) and end…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-12-03 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the medication was stored properly in locked compartments or provided a safe and secured storage with limited access for 1 (Resident #4) of 8 residents reviewed for medication storage. The facility failed to ensure a bottle of Milk of Magnesia (liquid medication used to treat constipation) was not on the nightstand next to Resident #4's bed on 12/03/2025. This failure could place the residents at risk of accidental overdose or misuse of medication.Findings included: Record review of Resident #4's Face Sheet, dated 12/03/2025, reflected an [AGE] year-old female who admitted on [DATE]. The resident had diagnoses which included osteoarthritis (joint pain and stiffness) and repeated falls. Record review of Resident #4's Quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 09/21/2025, reflected the resident was cognitively intact with a BIMS score of 13. Record review of Resident #4's Comprehensive Care Plan, dated 09/27/2025, did not reflect the resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-09-11 · tag F0576 — patternEnsure residents have reasonable access to and privacy in their use of communication methods.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents have the right to have reasonable access to use the telephone for 7 (Resident #30, Resident #50 and 5 anonymous residents from a group interview) of 12 residents reviewed for resident rights. 1. The facility failed to ensure there was a working phone system to receive and make calls for Resident #30, Resident #50 and 5 anonymous residents on 9/9/25 through 9/11/25. 2. The facility failed to ensure relatives of Resident #30 had a working phone number to reach the resident and facility staff. These failures could place the residents at risk of feelings of isolation and mental decline. 1. Record review of Resident #50''s face sheet dated 9/10/25 reflected a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia (group of thinking and social symptoms that interferes with daily functioning), psychotic disorder, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing) and personality change due to known…
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 before2025-09-11 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — patternEnsure 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 residents receive adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for two of three residents (Resident #20 and Resident #54) reviewed for accident hazards/supervision/devices 1.The Facility failed to ensure CNA D used a gait belt correctly when transferring Resident #20 from his wheelchair to the bed. 2. The Facility failed to ensure Resident #54's windowsill (a ledge or sill forming the bottom part of a window) was repaired when it had the outer edge broken off exposing approximately 1 inch of raw jagged wood across the entire width of the windowsill and exposing nails. These failures could affect the residents by placing the residents at risk for discomfort, pain, falls, injuries, and skin tears.Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident # 20's Face sheet dated 09/11/25 reflected an [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included an unspecified fracture of right femur (thigh bone)…
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 before2025-09-11 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for two (Dietary [NAME] L and Dietary Aide M) of two dietary staff reviewed for food service safety. The facility failed to ensure Dietary [NAME] L and Dietary Aide M wore effective hair restraints during lunch meal preparation on 09/10/2025. This failure placed residents at risk for food-borne illness and food contamination. Findings included: During an observation on 09/09/2025 at 12:12 PM and 12:26 PM during lunch meal service revealed Dietary [NAME] L's hair restraint was not covering about 2 inches of the back of her hair below the restraint and 1.5 inches on both sides of her hair in front while she was plating food for resident lunch. During an observation on 09/09/2025 at 12:15 pm and 12:27 PM revealed Dietary Aide M's hair restraint was not covering about 1 inch hair on both sides in front of her ear and about 0.5 inch of hair in the back below the hair restraint while she was putting condiments on plate and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-09-11 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 4 of 13 residents (Resident #36, Resident #14, Resident #54, and Resident #48) observed for infection control and 1 of 5 staff (CNA I) observed during meal tray delivery. 1. The facility failed to ensure LVN B sanitized the blood pressure cuff, pulse oximeter and electronic thermometer after using equipment on Resident #36 during medication pass on 09/10/25. 2. The facility failed to ensure LVN A did not cross contaminate Resident #14's medication and piston syringe used for medication administration via the residents' g-tube during a medication pass on 09/10/25 and failed to sanitize the blood pressure cuff after use. 3. The facility failed to ensure CNA F used the required PPE for Resident #54, who was on enhanced barrier…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-11 · tag F0553 — failed to let residents help plan their care — isolatedAllow resident to participate in the development and implementation of his or her person-centered plan of care.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident's right to participate in the development and implementation of his or her person-centered plan of care and facilitate the inclusion of the resident and/or resident representative for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #10) reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to ensure Resident #10's representative was offered the opportunity to participate in Resident #10's care plan meeting via telephone. This failure could place residents at risk of not being informed of resident's plan of care and a decline in quality of life. Findings included: Review of Resident #10's Quarterly MDS assessment dated reflected Resident #10 was an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of Alzheimers disease (progressive brain disorder that causes gradual decline in memory, thinking and language), coronary artery disease (condition in which the arteries that supply blood to the heart become narrowed…
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.
Show the remaining 25 citations
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-09-11 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive care plan to meet the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial wellbeing for 1 (Resident #3) of 8 residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans. The facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive care plan for Resident #3 to address the resident's left pelvic fracture and to address Resident #3's falls. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving care required to meet their individualized needs and place them at risk for falls and injury. Findings included:Review of Resident #3's face sheet undated reflected Resident #3 was an [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnose of dementia (group of conditions that cause a decline in cognitive abilities, memory and thinking skills that interfere with daily life), generalized muscle weakness, unsteadiness on feet, repeated falls and lack of coordination. Review of Resident #3's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-09-11 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — isolatedProvide 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 who needed respiratory care were provided such care consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's goals and preferences for 1 of 5 (Resident #39) residents reviewed for respiratory care. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #39's oxygen was administered at the correct setting of 2 liters per minute on 9/9/25 and 9/10/25 as ordered by the physician. This failure could place residents who receive respiratory care at an increased risk of developing respiratory complications and a decreased quality of care. Record review of Resident #39's admission record dated 10/10/25 reflected an [AGE] year-old female with an admission date of 9/11/24. Resident #39 was diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (constriction of the airways with difficulty breathing).Record review of Resident #39's Annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected Resident…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-11 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure that the medication error rate was not 5% or greater. The facility had a medication error rate of 6.25 %, based on 2 errors of 32 opportunities, which involved one of six residents (Residents #14) and one of three staff (LVN A) reviewed for medication errors, in that: LVN A failed to administer Resident #19's Digoxin 250 mcg with Digoxin 125 mcg for a total dosage of 375 mcg daily and failed to administer Ergocalciferol 1.25 mg on 09/10/25 as ordered by the physician. This failure could place residents at risk for not receiving therapeutic effects of their medications and possible adverse reactions. The findings include: Record review of Resident #14's Quarterly MDS assessment, dated 08/29/25, reflected a [AGE] year-old female with an admission date of 06/15/18. Staff had assessed her mental status as severely cognitively impaired. Diagnoses included coronary artery disease (damage or disease in the heart's major blood vessels),…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-09-11 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure that all drugs and biologicals used in the facility were labeled and stored in accordance with professional standards for 1 of 8 residents (Resident #7) reviewed for the storage of drugs and biologicals. The facility failed to ensure Resident # 7's Clobetasol Propionate external cream 0.05% was stored properly. This failure could place residents at risk of medication misuse, administration of incorrect dosage of medications which could result in non-therapeutic treatments or injuries. Findings included: Record review of Resident #7's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected a [AGE] year-old female with an admission date of 10/22/13. The resident had a BIMS score of 12 which indicated she was moderately cognitively impaired and had refused care 4-6 days out of the week. Resident #7 required supervision assistance with bathing and partial to moderate assistance with personal hygiene and dressing. Diagnoses included…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-11 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — isolatedEnsure food and drink is palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide food that was served at an appetizing temperature, and prepared by methods which conserved the nutritive value, flavor, and appearance for one (Lunch 09/10/25) of one meals observed for food palatability. The facility failed to ensure egg salad was served at an appetizing temperature for lunch on 09/10/25. This failure could place residents at risk of food borne illness and a decline in their quality of life. Findings included: In a confidential group interview with five residents on 09/10/25 at 11:00 AM revealed residents' concerns with their food not being served at the right temperatures. Observation on 09/10/25 at 11:57 AM, revealed Dietary [NAME] L took the food temperature using a thermometer and food temperature of the pureed egg salad at 51.5 degrees Fahrenheit and 12:03 PM egg salad 42.3 degrees Fahrenheit. There was no ice under the egg salad containers. Dietary [NAME] L left the egg salad sandwiches and pureed egg salad on the serving line. Dietary [NAME] L did not take the food temperature…
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 before2025-05-20 · 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
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an Infection Prevention and Control Program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 2 of 13 residents (Resident #1 and Resident #2) observed for infection control. 1. The facility failed to ensure RN A used the required PPE for Resident #1, who was on enhanced barrier precautions due to his wounds and foley catheter during a wound care observation on 05/20/25. 2. The facility failed to ensure Agency CNA C performed hand hygiene while providing incontinence care to Resident #2 on 05/20/25. These failures could place the residents at risk of cross-contamination and development of infection. Findings included: 1.Record review of Resident #1's undated face sheet reflected a [AGE] year-old male with an admission date of 01/15/25 and a readmission date of 05/07/25. Record review of Resident #1's 5-day MDS…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Fcited before2024-08-12 · 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 review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for the facility's only kitchen, in that, 1. The facility failed to ensure chest freezer was free of ice accumulation. 2. The facility failed to ensure freezer items were labeled, dated and sealed. 3. The facility failed to ensure the kitchen was free of gnats and flies. 4. The facility failed to ensure steam table was not dripping. These failures could place residents at risk for food contamination. Findings include: 1. Observation on 08/06/24 at 9:26 AM revealed inside the chest freezer, which had turkeys and frozen popsicles in it, in the kitchen had ice accumulation of at least inch on the sides and back. Interview on 08/06/24 at 9:27 AM with Dietary Manager revealed he did not open the chest freezer very often and was unaware of ice accumulation in the chest freezer. 2. Observation on 08/06/24 at 9:28 AM of 1 of 3 freezers revealed three pizza crusts in a plastic bag not labeled, dated or sealed…
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 · E2024-08-12 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — patternDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interview the facility failed to implement their written policies and procedures to prohibit and prevent abuse, neglect and exploitation for 7 of the 10 employees (Activity Director, LVN AA, CNA BB, LVN DD, CNA EE, CNA FF, CNA GG) reviewed for background screenings. The facility failed to screen, through the Employee Misconduct Registry (EMR)/Nurse Aide Registry (NAR), 7 employees, which included: the Activity Director, LVN AA, CNA BB, LVN DD, CNA EE, CNA FF, CNA GG. This failure could place residents at risk of care by staff who have been reported for misconduct such as abuse, neglect, or exploitation. Findings Included: Record review of facility's Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, or Mistreatment prohibition policy titled Leadership Policies and Procedures Section III Organizational Ethics, dated 2019, reflected: Component I: Screening 1. Pre-employment background screening is mandated for all facility employees: A. Facility state-specific Background Investigation Policy is available through the facility's regional HR consultant. B. The facility may 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 · Ecited before2024-08-12 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — patternDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan described the services that were to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for two of 17 (Residents #41 and Resident #39) reviewed for comprehensive care plans. 1. The facility failed to include in the care plan with an onset date of 05/29/24, Resident #41's ADLs functional limitations, Bowel incontinence and foley catheter and interventions necessary for care. 2. The facility failed to include in the care plan last revised on 07/16/24 Resident #39's contractures to bilateral hands with interventions required to prevent further decline. These failures could affect residents by not addressing their physical, mental, and psychosocial needs for each to attain or maintain their highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial outcome. Findings include: Record review of Resident #41's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 06/12/24,…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-08-12 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — patternProvide 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 observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene for three of sixteen residents (Residents #41, Resident #44, and Resident #47) reviewed for ADL care. The facility failed to ensure staff provided consistent showers/baths and grooming for Resident #41, Resident #44, and Resident #47. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving needed hygiene care which could cause skin breakdown, a loss of dignity and self-worth. Findings include: 1. Record review of Resident #41's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 06/12/24, reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She had a BIMSscore of 11, which indicated her cognition was moderately impaired. Resident #41 required substantial/maximum assist with toileting and shower/bathe dependent. Resident #41 had diagnoses which included…
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 · E2024-08-12 · tag F0679 — failed to provide activities — patternProvide activities to meet all resident's 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 all residents were provided, based on the preferences of each resident, an ongoing program to support residents in their choice of activities, both facility sponsored activities and individual activities, designed to meet the interests and support the physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident for 3 of 4 residents (Residents #10, #12, and #43) reviewed for activities. The facility failed to provide regular, individualized activities for Resident #10, Resident #12, and Resident #43. This failure placed residents at risk of decreased physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Findings included: Record review of Resident #10's face sheet, undated, revealed she was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and had the diagnoses of dementia (loss of cognition), heart failure, major depressive disorder (persistent feels of sadness and loss of interest) and hypertension (high blood pressure). Review…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-08-12 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure that all drugs and biologicals used in the facility were labeled and stored in accordance with professional standards for 3 of 9 residents (Resident #44, Resident #47, and Resident #30) and one of one medication room reviewed for drugs and biologicals. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #44's Dakins Solution (a bleach based wound cleanser) was stored properly. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident # 47's anti-fungal powder was stored properly. 3. The facility failed to ensure Resident #30's Sevelamer carbonate blister pack (used to lower phosphate in the blood for chronic kidney disease) was labeled with the correct dosage. 4. The facility failed to remove expired medication from the medication room refrigerator. These failures could place residents at risk of medication misuse, administration of incorrect dosage of medications which could result in non-therapeutic treatments or injuries and ineffective treatment 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.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-08-12 · 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
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 designated to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for two of 16 residents (Resident #41 and Resident # 6 ) reviewed for infection control. 1 The facility failed to ensure LVN B completed hand hygiene during wound care for Resident #41. 2. The facility failed to ensure LVN B used proper infection control prevention by taking the multi-use absorbent dressing (Alginate calcium with silver 4x4 dressing) packet inside Resident #41's room, cut a piece of it to use on the resident and returned the packet to the wound care cart for further use. 3. The facility failed to ensure LVN B used proper infection control prevention by returning the pair of scissors used to cut the Alginate calcium with silver dressing back in her cart without any form of sanitization. 4. The…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-12 · tag F0685 — isolatedAssist a resident in gaining access to vision and hearing 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 proper treatment and assistive devices to maintain hearing abilities for one of one resident (Resident #13) reviewed for hearing devices. The facility failed to have Resident #13 assessed for his hearing loss and failed to provide any amplification device to assist with his hearing impairment. This failure could place residents at risk for limited social interactions. The findings included: Record review of Resident # 13's undated Face sheet reflected an [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a readmission date of 06/24/24. Diagnoses included visual loss, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (disease that blocks air flow and makes it difficult to breath), adult failure to thrive, and conductive hearing loss (when sounds cannot get through the outer and middle ear). Record Review of Resident #13's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 06/28/24, reflected he was moderately cognitively impaired with a BIM score of 9. He…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-08-12 · 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 residents receive adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for one of two residents (Resident #13) reviewed for assisted transfers The Facility failed to ensure NA J used a gait belt when transferring Resident #30 from his wheelchair to the bed. These failures could affect the residents by placing the residents at risk for discomfort, pain, falls, injuries, and skin tears. Findings included: Record review of Resident # 13's undated Face sheet reflected an [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a readmission date of 06/24/24. Diagnoses included visual loss, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (disease that blocks air flow and makes it difficult to breath), adult failure to thrive, and conductive hearing loss (when sounds cannot get through the outer and middle ear). Record Review of Resident #13's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 06/28/24, reflected he was moderately cognitively impaired…
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 · D2024-08-12 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
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 who was incontinent of bladder received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections and to restore continence to the extent possible for one of three residents (Resident #41) reviewed for catheter and incontinence care. The facility failed to ensure CNA I did not place the urine catheter drainage bag on the bed during Resident #41's incontinent care, and wound dressing change. The facility failed to ensure CNA I did not perform hand hygiene during Resident #41's incontinent care. These failures could place residents at risk for not receiving care appropriate to address their incontinence and could increase the risk of urinary tract infections. Findings included: Record review of Resident #41's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 06/12/24, reflected a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She had a BIMS score of 11, which indicted her cognition was moderately impaired.…
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 · D2024-08-12 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolatedEnsure 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 provide treatment and services to prevent complications of enteral feeding for one of three residents (Residents #39) reviewed for feeding tubes. The facility failed to ensure staff followed physician ordered water flushes before and after medication administration given via the G-Tube for Resident #39. These failures could place residents at risk of tube obstruction and a decrease in hydration. Findings include: Record review of Resident #39's undated face sheet reflected a [AGE] year-old female with and admission date 03/01/23 and a re-admission date of 12/13/23. Diagnoses included dehydration, dysphagia(difficulty swallowing), cerebral vascular accident (stroke), contractures (a permanent tightening or shortening of the muscles, tendons and skin that causes a physical deformity) and unspecified severe protein-calorie malnutrition. Record review of Resident #39's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 04/26/24, reflected Resident #39 had 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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-08-12 · tag F0698 — failed to provide proper dialysis care — isolatedProvide 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 interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents who required dialysis received such services, consistent with professional standards of practice for one of 2 residents (Resident #30) reviewed for dialysis. The facility failed to ensure post dialysis communication sheets were reviewed and completed for Residents #30. This failure could place residents at risk of inadequate post dialysis care. Findings included: Record review of Resident #30's undated face sheet reflected a [AGE] year-old male with the latest return to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included type 2 diabetes mellitus ( a long-term condition in which the body has trouble controlling blood sugar) with diabetic chronic kidney disease and dependence on renal dialysis. Record review of Resident #30s Annual MDS assessment dated [DATE], reflected an initial admission of 12/26/23. Resident #30 was able to make himself understood and understood others and had a BIMs score of 15, which indicated he was cognitively…
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 before2023-06-22 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — patternProvide 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 observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide the necessary services for residents who are unable to carry out activities of daily living to maintain good grooming and personal hygiene for 4 (Resident #23, Resident #44, Resident #49, and Resident#24) of 16 residents reviewed for ADLs. The facility failed to ensure: 1- Resident#23 had her fingernails cleaned and trimmed. 2- Resident#43 had her fingernails cleaned and trimmed. 3- Resident#49 had his fingernails cleaned and trimmed. 4- Resident#24 had her facial hair under her chin trimmed These failures could place residents who were dependent on staff for ADL care at risk for loss of dignity, risk for infections, and a decreased quality of life. Findings include: 1- A record review of Resident #23's Quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected Resident #23 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses included dementia (a progressive loss of intellectual functioning, especially with impairment…
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 · E2023-06-22 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — patternProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that based on the comprehensive assessment of a resident, the residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan for one (Resident #56) of fifteen residents reviewed for quality of care. 1. The facility staff failed to obtain physician orders for the use of compression socks for Resident #56. 2. The facility staff failed to perform weekly skin assessments for the month of June 2023 for Resident #56. These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving the care and treatment needed to meet their needs and could result in undetected skin issues and delay in treatments. Findings included: Record review of Resident #56's undated face sheet reflected a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of cellulitis (bacterial skin infection) of right and left lower limbs, diabetes, and chronic congestive heart failure…
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 before2023-06-22 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — patternProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for the facility's only kitchen reviewed for one (06/21/23 lunch) of one meal observed for food temperatures. The facility failed to ensure pureed ham was served at minimum of 145 degrees F and cabbage was served at least 135 degrees F for 06/21/23 lunch for residents with pureed diet. This failure could place residents at risk for food contamination and food-borne illness. Findings included: Observation on 06/21/23 at 11:30 AM revealed Dietary [NAME] I took food temperature of pureed cabbage which revealed it was 122 degrees F. At 11:32 AM Dietary [NAME] I took food temperature of pureed ham of 120 degrees F. Interview on 06/21/23 at 11:35 AM with Dietary [NAME] I revealed ham food temperature needed to be at least 120 degrees F to 145 degrees F before serving. She stated vegetables, like cabbage, should have been 115 to 120 degrees F before serving. Observation on 06/21/23 at 11:48 AM revealed Dietary [NAME] I…
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 before2023-06-22 · tag F0925 — failed to control pests — patternMake sure there is a pest control program to prevent/deal with mice, insects, or other pests.
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 an effective pest control program was implemented so the facility was free of pests and rodents for the dining room and one of four halls (Hall 3) reviewed for pest control. The facility failed to keep an effective pest control program to ensure the dining room, kitchen, and residents' rooms on Hall 3 were free of flies and gnats. This failure could place residents at risk for a reduced quality of life. Findings included: Observation on 06/20/23 at 10:09 AM revealed three flies on Resident #11's bed and 1 fly landed on her pillow. Interview with Resident # 11 revealed the flies bothered her and she used to have a fly swatter in her room, but someone took it. She stated she would swat at them all the time. Resident #11 stated the flies were constantly in her room on a daily basis and at least the last month the flies had gotten worse. Observation and interview on 06/20/23 at 10:12 AM revealed Resident # 16 stated he had flies in his room. Observed 2 flies in the resident room. Observation on 06/20/23 at…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-06-22 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolatedDevelop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan described the services that were to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for one (Residents #56) of fifteen residents reviewed for comprehensive care plans. The facility failed to document Resident #56's use of compression stockings in his comprehensive care plan. This failure could place residents at risk for possible adverse side effects, adverse consequences, and decreased quality of life. Findings include: Record review of Resident #56's undated face sheet reflected a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of cellulitis (bacterial skin infection) of right and left lower limbs, diabetes, and chronic congestive heart failure (chronic condition in which the heart does not pump blood as it should). Record review of Resident #56's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected a BIMSs of 12,…
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 · D2023-06-22 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring and administering of all medications to meet the needs of each resident for two (Residents #15 and #58) of four residents reviewed for pharmacy services. 1. Agency LVN A failed to follow the manufacturer's instructions to [NAME] the Humalog Insulin (Hormone) Pen prior to dialing in required amount of Insulin to be administered to Resident #15. 2. Agency LVN A failed to flush Resident #58's G-Tube (a tube inserted through the abdomen that delivers nutrition directly to the stomach) with 60 cc water prior to and after medication administration per physician orders and failed to flush the G-tube by gravity, and instead pushed 50 cc of water prior to and after medication administration. These failures placed residents at risk of not receiving full dosage of medication, and abdominal discomfort or dislodgement of the G-tube. Findings included: 1. Review of Resident #15's…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2023-06-22 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to 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 one (Resident #15) of five residents observed for infection control in that: 1. The facility failed to ensure Agency LVN A performed hand hygiene after completion of FSBS 2. The facility failed to ensure Agency LVN A failed to sanitize the glucometer prior to and after obtaining FSBS on Resident #15. Theses failure could place residents at risk for infection and cross contamination. Findings included: Review of Resident #15's undated Face Sheet reflected a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included type 2 diabetes mellitus. Review of Resident #15's Physician Orders Report dated 06/01/23 to 06/30/23 reflected, . FSBS AC &HS with Humalog SQ sliding scale as follows .151 to 200 = 3 Units . An…
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
$47,097 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $47,097 — penalty dated 2024-08-12
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 FUNDAMENTAL HEALTHCARE — 66 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 | 1 of 5 | 2.4 | -1.4 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.5 | -0.5 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 2.2 | -1.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 3.4 | +0.6 vs chain |
The other 65 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.4★, per CMS)
Showing 40 of 65; 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 | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DALLAS COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | 100% | since 04/01/2017 |
| BRADLEY, SHANNAN | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 12/11/2023 |
| CASTANEDA, EDMUNDO | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE; CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 01/10/2022 |
| CLEMENS, ERIN | Individual | W-2 MANAGING EMPLOYEE | — | since 01/01/2022 |
| CERISE, FREDERICK | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR | — | since 03/24/2014 |
| TEXOMA LONG TERM CARE, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 04/01/2017 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 9 rows in the source record cover these 6 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
2 organizational owners listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in TX
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Texas Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 455806. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-09-11, 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.