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

Oasis Nursing & Rehabilitation Center

9001 North Loop, El Paso, TX 79907 · For profit - Corporation · 130 certified beds · (915) 859-1650 Medicare & Medicaid certified

Call the home — (915) 859-1650 Need help choosing, fast? Free, unbiased: Eldercare Locator 1-800-677-1116
No harm-level citations or fines — but 21 lower-level deficiencies on record (see below)
Insights

This home’s record is mixed — some reassuring signs, some worth asking about.

In its favor
  • a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
  • no federal fines or payment denials on record
Worth asking about
  • a high number of inspection citations overall (21) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
  • its payroll-based staffing rating is low (1/5)
  • nursing-staff turnover (95%) runs well above the national median (45%)

One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.

A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.

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

Location & what’s nearby

Hospital
★★ 2/5 CMS · Emergency dept. usually open 24/7 · ER 24/7
Urgent care / clinic
8825 N Loop Dr · (915) 860-1001 · Call to confirm hours
Pharmacy
Sun Drugs<0.1 mi
700 N Zaragoza Rd Ste Z · (915) 859-2600 · Call to confirm hours
Grocery
El Super0.1 mi
703 N Zaragoza Rd · (915) 242-0687 · Call to confirm hours
Park
245 Fay Way · (915) 859-7901 · Typically dawn to dusk
Place of worship
9042 Coventry Cir · (915) 858-6893

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

Quality measures — how residents actually fare

Overall quality measures 5 of 5
Long-stay residentspeople who live here 5 of 5

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 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.

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

Overall rating4★
Inspection scorelower = better
See all quality measures vs. state & national benchmarks
MeasureThis homeState avgTypical statevs typical state
Long-stay residents whose need for help with daily activities increased18.2%15.8%15.4%worse
Long-stay residents who lose too much weight4.2%3.0%5.4%better
Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder0.0%0.3%0.9%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection0.0%0.8%2.0%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms0.6%2.4%6.5%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents who were physically restrained0.0%0.0%0.1%better than state — see note marked double-dagger below the table
Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury3.9%3.3%3.3%worse
Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened3.0%14.0%16.1%better
Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication8.8%18.0%18.9%better
Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%98.0%95.3%typical
Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers1.6%3.8%4.7%better
Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control12.7%13.4%21.2%better
Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication — see the note below the table1.9%9.6%17.1%better
Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication3.2%1.5%1.4%worse
Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine100.0%88.0%79.4%better

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

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

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

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

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

54.7% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — which CMS reads as no different from the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 31 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.

54.7%U.S. median 51.5%
Got home and stayed home
10.4%U.S. median 10.7%
Went back to hospital
0.37U.S. median 0.30
Therapy hours / resident / day
0.14hours / resident / day
Physical therapy
0.17hours / resident / day
Occupational therapy
0.06hours / resident / day
Speech therapy

Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.37 therapist hours per resident per day in 2025Q4 — more than 65% of the 13,714 homes that report any therapy hours at all.

Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 22% 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 14% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.

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

See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
MeasureThis homeU.S. medianPeriod coveredCMS’s call
Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF54.7%CMS range 41.8–72.451.5%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF10.4%CMS range 6.7–15.810.7%Oct 2022–Sep 2024no different from U.S.
Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.—
Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.—
Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.—
Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified90.9%98.7%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care settingnot 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 dischargenot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.—
Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay0.0%0.0%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
New or worsened pressure ulcersPercentage of residents with pressure ulcers/pressure injuries that are new or worsened4.5%1.9%Oct 2024–Sep 2025CMS makes no comparison for this measure
Infections that led to hospitalPercentage of infections residents got during their SNF stay that resulted in hospitalizationnot reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure.—
Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs1.301.02Oct 2022–Sep 2024CMS makes no comparison for this measure

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

Staffing

0.47
RN hours/ resident / day
0.89
LPN hours/ resident / day
2.04
Aide hours/ resident / day
3.40
Total nurse hours/ resident / day
0.39
RN hoursweekends
94.8%
Total nursing turnover
91.7%
RN turnover

How full it usually is: this home is certified for 130 beds and averages 99.1 residents a day — about 76% occupied, or roughly 31 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.

Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.40 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.47 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.04 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 2.93 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.62 on weekdays — 19% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.48 to 0.42 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)

This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 95% is well above the national median of 45%. 2 administrators have left in the past year — frequent leadership churn is a warning sign families often miss.

Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.

Inspection trend

7 ↑
deficiencies at the latest standard inspection (2026-06-25)
4
at the previous standard inspection (2025-04-18)

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

Inspection deficiencies

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

ABCDEFGHIJKL

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

21 citations, most serious first. The 10 most serious are shown; the remaining 11 are one tap away and print in full.

  • Potential for harm · E2026-06-25 · tag F0695 — failed to provide proper breathing / tracheostomy care — pattern
    Provide safe and appropriate respiratory care for a resident when needed.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure that a resident who needed respiratory care was provided with such care, consistent with professional standards of practice for 2 (Resident #32 and Resident #12) of 11 residents observed for oxygen management.The facility failed to maintain the oxygen concentrator filter for Resident #12.The facility failed on 06/23/2026 to ensure an oxygen warning sign was posted outside the room of Resident #32 while the resident was receiving oxygen therapy.These failures had the potential to expose residents receiving oxygen therapy delayed identification of oxygen-related needs, increase the risk of fire hazards associated with oxygen use, reduce airflow, decrease equipment efficiency, and potentially affect oxygen delivery to the resident.Findings included: Resident #32 Record review of the face sheet dated 06/23/2026 revealed Resident #32 was an [AGE] year-old male who was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was readmitted 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2026-06-25 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for kitchen sanitation and food storage.1. - The facility failed to store food in the dry storage room in sealed containers. 2. - The facility failed to label and date food containers stored in the refrigerator.3. - The facility failed to keep 21 spice bottles stored on a rack directly above food preparation sink free of grease build-up and residual around the tops and sides of the bottles; failed to label a spice bottle that contained white powder.4. - The facility failed to keep the bottom shelf in the freezer free of food particles.5. - The facility failed to store food in the freezer in sealed containers.These failures could place residents at risk of foodborne illnesses. Findings include: During an observation and interview on 06/23/2026 8:38 a.m. with Dietary Supervisor H in the Dry Storage Room revealed the following:-four bowls of cereal stored on a meal tray on 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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-06-25 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — isolated
    Reasonably 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences for 2 (Resident #22 and Resident #89) of 9 residents reviewed for call light placement.The facility failed to ensure call lights were within reach for Residents #22 and #89.This failure could affect residents by not having access to call for assistance resulting in needs not being met.Findings included:Resident #22Record review of the face sheet dated 06/23/2026 revealed Resident #22 was a [AGE] year-old female who was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was readmitted on [DATE].Record review of the history and physical dated 05/12/2026 revealed Resident #22 was diagnosed with generalized muscle weakness (decreased strength), other abnormalities of gait and mobility (problems walking or moving safely), lack of coordination (difficulty controlling body movements), unspecified dementia (memory/thinking 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.

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-06-25 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — isolated
    Provide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, 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 hygiene, for 1 of 19 residents ( Resident #92) reviewed for ADL care.The facility failed to ensure Resident #92 had trimmed and clean nails on 06/23/2026 and 06/24/2026.This failure could place residents who required assistance with ADL's at risk for unmet care needs.Findings included:Record review of Resident #92's face-sheet dated 06/24/26 revealed a [AGE] year-old male with admission date 04/20/22.Record review of Resident #92's history and physical dated 06/24/26 revealed a medical history of Diabetes Mellitus type 2 (a chronic condition when the body becomes resistant to insulin or does not produce enough insulin causing high blood sugar levels), Cerebral Infarction (disruption in blood flow to the brain causing cell death), and hemiplegia (one-sided weakness or paralysis of the…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2026-06-25 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolated
    Ensure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident's environment was as free from accident hazards as possible for 1 of 15 rooms (room # 7) reviewed for accidents.The facility failed to ensure Resident #12 did not have a white unlabeled medication bottle in room on 06/23/26.This deficient practice could place residents at risk of harm or injury and contribute to avoidable accidents. The findings included: Record review of Resident 12's face-sheet dated 6/25/2026 revealed a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Record review of Resident 12's history and physical dated 05/20/26 revealed diagnoses of cognitive communication deficit (is when someone has trouble communicating effectively because of problems with the mental skills that go along with talking), dysphasia (is a condition that results from damage to the areas of the brain responsible for language, it leads to difficulties in speaking), and unspecified dementia (a diagnosis given when…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-06-25 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolated
    Ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observations, and interviews, the facility failed ensure that all drugs and biologicals used in the facility were stored in accordance with professional standards for one (South Low Side Medication Cart) of five medication carts viewed for medication storage. -The facility failed to store eye drop bottles separately for multiple residents when eye drops bottles were removed from the manufacture's containers and were stored together in one plastic bin in the medication cart.This failure could affect residents that received medications from the facility by placing them at risk of cross contamination and infection.The findings include:Observation 06/24/26 at 11:15 a.m. with LVN I revealed Medication Cart South Low Side, Multiple Eye drops bottles removed from the manufacture's containers were labeled with multiple resident's names were stored together in a plastic bin in one of the drawers in the medication cart. She said that she was not aware that eye drop bottles removed from the manufacture's containers needed to be stored in a container with dividers to prevent cross…

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

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2026-06-25 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for one of one treatment cart checked for cross contamination, and for one (South Side) of two Crash Carts reviewed for infection control. -The facility failed to ensure an opened package of 4 x 4 gauze pads was stored in a sealed container in the crash cart on the South Side of the facility. -The facility failed to ensure an opened package of 4 x 4 gauze pads was stored in a sealed container in the treatment cart. These failures could result in increased risk of infection to residents. Findings include: During an observation and interview on 06/24/26 at 10:00 a.m. in the South Side with the DON revealed there was an open paper package of 4 x 4 gauze pads that was not stored in sealed container in the crash cart. The DON said the opened packages of 4 x 4 gauze pads needed to be stored in…

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

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-04-18 · tag F0558 — failed to accommodate residents' needs and preferences — pattern
    Reasonably 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 observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure residents receive services in the facility with reasonable accommodation of resident needs and preferences for 2 (Resident #52 and Resident #88) of 9 residents reviewed for call light placement. The facility failed to ensure call lights were at reach for Residents #52 and #88. This failure could affect residents by not having access to call for assistance resulting in needs not being met. Findings included: Resident #58 Review of Resident #52's face sheet dated 04/17/2025 reflected an [AGE] year-old female with an admission date of 10/31/2022 and a re-admission date of 01/23/2025 with diagnoses of a fracture of unspecified part of the neck of right femur, pain on right hip, muscle wasting and atrophy, difficulty in walking, unsteadiness on feet, muscle weakness generalized and other lack of coordination. Review of Resident #52's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 9 indicating a moderate cognitive…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2025-04-18 · tag F0804 — failed to serve food at safe, palatable temperature — pattern
    Ensure 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 palatable, attractive, and at a safe and appetizing temperature, for one test tray reviewed. A test tray of the food served at lunch on 04/16/25 on hall revealed the ribs were not hot and at an appetizing temperature. This failure could place residents who ate in their rooms at-risk of poor intake and/or foodborne illness. The findings included: Observation of test tray provided to this surveyor on 04/16/25 at 12:32 PM, revealed temperature reading of lunch entree alternative ribs were 120F degrees. In an interview on 04/17/25 at 3:10 PM with Dietary [NAME] F revealed that hot food temperature readings should be 140F or 150F degrees at time of the resident is served. She stated the purpose for hot foods to be at that temperature was to satisfy the resident as they can become upset being served a cold meal when it was meant to be a warm meal. She stated the risks of hot food being below the required temperature included residents not eating their meals or harm such as illness. In 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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Ecited before2025-04-18 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — pattern
    Procure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food under sanitary conditions in the kitchen. The facility failed to date 04/15/25 and label the contents of the disposable plastic cups that contained syrup located in the fridge in the facility's main kitchen. The facility failed to maintain corn dogs and red onions free from visible freezer burn. The facility failed to maintain the water temperature for 2 of 3 compartment sink per their policy. The facility failed to maintain the kitchen area free from staff personal belongings. The facility failed to cover and seal a meal cart containing the residents' meal trays while transporting them through zone/hallway # 6. These failures could place all residents who received meals from the main kitchen and place them at risk for food borne illness. The findings were: In an observation on 04/15/25 at 07:09 AM during the initial kitchen tour, the fridge located in the main kitchen had disposable plastic cups that contained syrup that was placed in a plastic bin and was 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.

    Nutrition and Dietary Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
Show the remaining 11 citations
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2025-04-18 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — isolated
    Ensure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals were labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles and included the appropriate accessory and cautionary instructions, and the expiration date for one of three medications carts reviewed. - The high north hall nurse's cart had a smeared (illegible) dated insulin pen for Resident # 58 This failure could place residents at risk for harm by receiving ineffective insulin therapy. Finding included: Review of Resident 58's face sheet dated [DATE] revealed a [AGE] year-old male with an original admission date of [DATE] and a readmission date of [DATE]. Review of Resident #58's medical diagnoses revealed Type 2 diabetes mellitus with proliferative diabetic retinopathy without macular edema unspecified eye. Review of Resident #58's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 07, indicating severe cognitive impairment. Review of Resident #58's Care Plan dated [DATE] revealed…

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

    Pharmacy Service Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2024-04-02 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — pattern
    Safeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to maintain medical records that were complete and accurately documented for 5 (Resident #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5) of 5 residents reviewed for accurate medical records. 1. The facility failed to ensure LVN ADON C signed the Initial Skin Assessment when completed for Resident #1 on [DATE]. 2. The facility failed to ensure Social Worker signed and dated Care Plan Conference Form when completed for Resident #2 on [DATE]. 3. The facility failed to ensure Social Worker signed and dated Care Plan Conference Form when completed for Resident #3 on [DATE]. 4. The facility failed to ensure Social Worker signed and dated Care Plan Conference Form when completed for Resident #4 on [DATE]. 5. The facility failed to ensure Social Worker signed and dated Care Plan Conference Form when completed for Resident #5 on [DATE]. This failure could place residents at risk for misinformation about professional care provided. Findings included: Resident #1 Closed record 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-04-02 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolated
    Provide appropriate pressure ulcer care and prevent new ulcers from developing.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure that residents receive care, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection, and prevent new ulcers from developing for 1 (Resident #5) of 5 residents reviewed for quality of care. The facility failed on 03/29/2024 to ensure the pressure ulcer on Resident #5's right lateral foot was covered with a dressing as ordered. This failure could result in increased pain, infections, development of new pressure ulcers, and decline in quality of life for residents. Findings included: Review of admission Record dated 03/29/24 at 12:39 PM, for Resident #5 revealed initial admission dated 11/02/2016 and re-admission date 05/16/2021. Record review of Annual History and Physical dated 07/20/2023 at 9:48 AM, for Resident #5 revealed [AGE] year-old male with past medical history of respiratory failure (a condition that makes it difficult to breathe on your own), vitamin D deficiency, hypertension,…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-02-08 · tag F0655 — isolated
    Create and put into place a plan for meeting the resident's most immediate needs within 48 hours of being admitted
    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 baseline care plan for each resident that included the instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care of the resident that met professional standards of quality care and the facility failed to ensure the baseline care plan was developed within 48 hours of a resident's admission for 2 of 8 residents (Resident #294 and Resident # 241) reviewed for baseline care plans. The facility failed to ensure Resident #294 had a baseline care plan that addressed her fracture of left femur (longest, strongest, thigh bone), pain management, wound care for surgical wound, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Hypertension (high blood pressure), and Malignant neoplasm of lung (lung cancer). The facility failed to ensure Resident #241 had a baseline care plan that addressed his use of a feeding tube. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving needed care and services or continuity of care. Findings include: Record review of…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-02-08 · tag F0693 — failed to provide proper feeding-tube care — isolated
    Ensure that feeding tubes are not used unless there is a medical reason and the resident agrees; and provide appropriate care for a resident with a feeding tube.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that residents who receive enteral nutrition received treatment to prevent complications of enteral feeding for one (Resident #241) of six residents reviewed for tube feeding. Resident #241 was receiving hydration through a g-tube (a tube into the stomach for nutrition and liquids) from a plastic bag which had been labeled using a marking pen. This failure could place residents who receive liquids through a g-tube at increased risk of having marking pen chemicals in the liquid. Findings included: Record review of Resident #241's face sheet, dated 2/8/2024 revealed he was [AGE] years old, was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE]. Record review of Resident #241 ' s electronic census listing revealed he was discharged on 01/22/2024 and readmitted on [DATE]. Review of Resident #241 ' s electronic diagnoses listing accessed 02/08/2024 revealed he had diagnoses including dysphagia (problems 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.

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2024-02-08 · tag F0726 — failed to have competent, trained nursing staff — isolated
    Ensure that nurses and nurse aides have the appropriate competencies to care for every resident in a way that maximizes each resident's well being.
    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, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that nurse aides were able to demonstrate competency in skills and techniques to provide nursing and related services for 1 of 2 residents (Residents #27) by 1 of 3 certified staff (CNA A) reviewed for competent staff, in that: CNA A failed to change his gloves once they became contaminated during incontinent care for Resident #27. These failures could place residents at risk for not receiving nursing services by adequately trained and certified aides and could result in a decline in health and infection. The findings were: Record review of Resident #27s admission record dated 02/06/2024 indicated she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of dementia, muscle wasting and atrophy (waste away). She was [AGE] years of age. Record review of Resident #27's care plan revised date 10/19/21 indicated in part: Focus: The resident has bladder incontinence r/t related to) Alzheimer's Disease and Dementia. The resident has bowel…

    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.

    Nursing and Physician Services Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-02-08 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolated
    Provide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 1 of 2 residents (Resident #27) reviewed for infection control. CNA A failed to change his gloves after they became contaminated during incontinent care while assisting Resident #27. This failure could place residents at risk for cross contamination and the spread of infection. Finding include: Record review of Resident #27s admission record dated 02/06/2024 indicated she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of dementia, muscle wasting and atrophy (waste away). She was [AGE] years of age. Record review of Resident #27's care plan revised date 10/19/21 indicated in part: Focus: The resident has bladder incontinence r/t Alzheimer's Disease and Dementia. The resident has bowel incontinence r/t Alzheimer's Disease…

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

    Infection Control Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · E2023-10-27 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — pattern
    Provide 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 is incontinent of bladder receives appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections and to restore continence to the extent possible for 3 (Resident #7, Resident #8, and Resident #9) of 5 residents reviewed for quality of care. 1. The facility failed to ensure Residents #7's and #9's catheter leg strap was in place to secure the catheter. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #8's and Resident #9's'catheter tubing and drainage bags were off the floor. This failure could place residents with foley catheters at risk of catheter pulling causing pain and/or infection and risk for infection due to improper care practices and cross contamination. Findings include: Resident #7: Review of Resident #7's face sheet dated 10/26/2023, revealed a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #7's diagnoses included: nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage (bleeding into the…

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

    Quality of Life and Care Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-10-27 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolated
    Honor 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 provide a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment for 1 (Resident #7) of 6 residents reviewed for resident rights, in that: The facility failed to ensure Resident #7's bedroom horizontal venetian blinds did not have several broken slats with jagged edges within reach of the resident. This failure could place the resident at risk of injury when manipulating the window blinds. Findings included: Review of Resident #7's face sheet dated 10/26/2023, revealed a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #7's diagnoses included: nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage (bleeding into the substance of the brain in the absence of trauma or surgery), cognitive communication deficit (difficulty with thinking and how someone uses language), hemiplegia affecting left nondominant side (paralysis of one side of the body), type 2 diabetes (a chronic condition that affects the way the body processes blood sugar),…

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

    Resident Rights Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • Potential for harm · D2023-10-27 · tag F0656 — failed to write and follow a full care plan — isolated
    Develop and implement a complete care plan that meets all the resident's needs, with timetables and actions that can be measured.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan that included measurable objectives and time frames to meet a resident medical and nursing needs and described the services to be furnished to attain or maintain the residents highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for 1 (Resident #7) of 6 residents reviewed for care plans in that: -The facility failed to follow the comprehensive person-centered care plan for risk of falling by applying a mat to bedside every shift for Resident #7. This deficient practice could place residents in the facility at risk of not receiving the necessary care or services as indicated in their comprehensive person-centered plans developed to address their needs. Findings include: Review of Resident #7's face sheet dated 10/26/2023, revealed a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #7's diagnoses included: nontraumatic intracranial…

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

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction
  • No harm found · B2024-02-08 · tag F0640 — pattern
    Encode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
    What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing

    NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review the facility failed to fulfill automated data processing requirements that within 14 days after a facility completes a resident's assessment, a facility must electronically transmit MDS data to the CMS System, including the subset of items upon a resident's discharge for 1 (Resident #83) of 24 residents reviewed for MDS completion. Resident #83's Discharge MDS dated [DATE] was not transmitted to CMS within the 14-day date processing requirement. This failure could place residents at risk of the CMS not being aware of their condition for payment and quality of measure purposes. Finding included: Record review of Resident #83's face sheet dated 02/08/2024 revealed he was 78 and was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Record review of Resident #83's electronic census record revealed he was discharged on 10/11/2023. Record review of Resident #83's MDS transmittal information revealed his Discharge MDS had been completed but not transmitted to CMS. In an interview on 02/08/24 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.

    Resident Assessment and Care Planning Deficiencies · Deficient, Provider has date of correction

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

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

Fines & penalties

No federal fines in the current CMS record.

Part of a chain

This home belongs to CREATIVE SOLUTIONS IN HEALTHCARE — 149 facilities. Here is how its ratings compare with the chain’s average across all its homes: See the whole chain — ratings, flags, fines and finances →

RatingThis homeChain avg
Overall 4 of 52.1+1.9 vs chain
Health inspection 4 of 52.7+1.3 vs chain
Staffing 1 of 51.1-0.1 vs chain
Quality measures 5 of 53.2+1.8 vs chain
The other 148 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.1★, per CMS)
1 of 5Afton Oaks Nursing and Rehabilitation CenterHouston, TX 1 of 5Arlington Heights Health and Rehabilitation CenterFort Worth, TX 1 of 5Beltline Healthcare CenterGarland, TX 1 of 5Bluebonnet Nursing & RehabilitationKarnes City, TX 1 of 5Bluebonnet Point WellnessBullard, TX 1 of 5Brentwood Terrace Healthcare And RehabilitationParis, TX 1 of 5Buena Vida Nursing and Rehab-San AntonioSan Antonio, TX 1 of 5Cottonwood Nursing & RehabilitationDenton, TX 1 of 5Countryview Nursing & RehabilitationTerrell, TX 1 of 5Dogwood Trails ManorWoodville, TX 1 of 5Downtown Health and Rehabilitation CenterFort Worth, TX 1 of 5Estates Healthcare and Rehabilitation CenterFort Worth, TX 1 of 5Fair Park Health & Rehabilitation CenterDallas, TX 1 of 5Five Points Nursing & Rehabilitation of College StCollege Station, TX 1 of 5Five Points at Lake Highlands Nursing and RehabDallas, TX 1 of 5Five Points of PflugervillePflugerville, TX 1 of 5Franklin Heights Nursing & RehabilitationEl Paso, TX 1 of 5Gilmer Nursing & RehabilitationGilmer, TX 1 of 5Grace Pointe Wellness CenterEl Paso, TX 1 of 5Graham Oaks Care CenterGraham, TX 1 of 5Granbury Care CenterGranbury, TX 1 of 5Greenhill VillasMount Pleasant, TX 1 of 5Heritage At Longview Healthcare CenterLongview, TX 1 of 5Huebner Creek Health & Rehabilitation CenterSan Antonio, TX 1 of 5Interlochen Health and Rehabilitation CenterArlington, TX 1 of 5Kenedy Health & RehabilitationKenedy, TX 1 of 5Kennedy Health & RehabLufkin, TX 1 of 5Lake Lodge Nursing & RehabilitationLake Worth, TX 1 of 5Lampstand Nursing and RehabilitationBryan, TX 1 of 5Lancaster Nursing & RehabilitationLancaster, TX 1 of 5Longmeadow Healthcare CenterJustin, TX 1 of 5Marine Creek Nursing & RehabilitationFort Worth, TX 1 of 5Mesa Vista Inn Health CenterSan Antonio, TX 1 of 5Mountain View Health & RehabilitationEl Paso, TX 1 of 5Navasota Nursing & RehabilitationNavasota, TX 1 of 5Normandy Terrace Nursing & Rehabilitation CenterSan Antonio, TX 1 of 5North Pointe Nursing and RehabilitationWatauga, TX 1 of 5Park Place Care CenterGeorgetown, TX 1 of 5Parkview Manor Nursing and RehabilitationWeimar, TX 1 of 5Peach Tree PlaceWeatherford, TX

Showing 40 of 148; lowest-rated first.

A home rated well below its chain’s average can signal local problems; a chain with a low average across the board is a bigger pattern worth researching. CMS chain data under-reports private-equity and REIT ownership, so treat this as a floor, not the full picture.

Who owns this facility

Owner / managerTypeRoleSince
BOWERS, SEANIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 07/01/2024
CISNEROS, ALFREDIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 02/18/2008
COBB, TRAVISIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 10/05/2022
COOPER, STEPHENIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 11/11/2022
HARDIN, SHERRIEIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 09/04/2024
KERZEE, RICHARDIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 09/24/2007
KORENEK, PATRICIAIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 05/05/2018
SOECHTING, PAULIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 11/22/2024
STRACK, JOEIndividualMANAGING CONTROL - GOVERNING BODYsince 02/11/2022
HUGGINS, LINDAIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 04/01/2022
WILLIG, ZACHARYIndividualCORPORATE DIRECTORsince 01/01/2025
THOMPSON, JOHNNYIndividualCORPORATE OFFICERsince 01/01/2024
EL PASO II ENTERPRISES, LLCOrganizationOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 05/16/2025
BLAKE, GARYIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNFsince 09/01/2022
BLAKE, MALISAIndividualOPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROLsince 09/01/2022
AMAKIRI, ONYEMAIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 01/01/2025
SOLEM, DAVIDIndividualADP OF THE SNFsince 05/16/2025

CMS files one row per role, so the 19 rows in the source record cover these 17 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.

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

Follow the money — this home’s finances

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

$8.1M
Net patient revenuemost recent cost report
+5.7%
Operating marginrevenue minus expenses
Who pays — share of resident-days
Medicaid 79%Medicare 1%Other / private 19%

About 79% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself.

Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.

Cost & finances

$241per resident / day
operating cost
$7,321per month
≈ monthly operating cost
$255per day
avg. revenue, all payers

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

What families pay in TX

Paying with Medicaid

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

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

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

Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-09-01 — CMS provider number 675568. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-06-25, which can lag current conditions. Staffing hours are CMS PBJ CY2026Q1 (Jan–Mar 2026). Check this record against the government’s own page for it: this home on Medicare Care Compare ↗ — the authoritative source, and the place to confirm anything here before you act on it. How we present it →

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

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

What to do next