Fort Worth Wellness & Rehabilitation
2129 Skyline Dr, Fort Worth, TX 76114 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 104 certified beds · (817) 626-1956 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- it has a citation for mishandling residents’ money or property (F0565)
- inspectors cited 1 immediate-jeopardy problem — the most serious level
- a high number of inspection citations overall (19) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $122,336 in federal fines (most recent 2025-07-17)
- 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 3 to 1 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
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 | 11.0% | 15.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 1.4% | 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 | 0.0% | 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 | 1.6% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 10.2% | 14.0% | 16.1% | better |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 14.5% | 18.0% | 18.9% | better |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 2.1% | 3.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 21.5% | 13.4% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 11.3% | 9.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 0.7% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 97.5% | 88.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 27.2% | 25.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 12.5% | 12.3% | 12.0% | typical |
* 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.
41.5% 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 35 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.27 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 39% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 3% of this home’s weekday level — it runs therapy on weekdays, with essentially none at the weekend. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 41.5%CMS range 28.0–53.3 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.1%CMS range 6.3–16.4 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 92.9% | 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 | 88.5% | 100.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 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 | 9.1%CMS range 5.1–15.5 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.40 | 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 104 beds and averages 83.4 residents a day — about 80% occupied, or roughly 21 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 2.80 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.33 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.72 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 2.42 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 2.96 on weekdays — 18% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.34 to 0.33 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 47% is about the same as the national median of 45%.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are more than at the previous inspection — worsening. Fewer citations over time suggests a home is fixing problems; a rising count is a warning sign — though two surveys are a short record, and survey teams differ. These counts are from the standard annual health survey only; the full citation list below may also include findings from complaint investigations, so the two won’t always add up.
Inspection deficiencies
State health-inspection citations, most serious first. Each carries an F-code (the federal rule it cites, e.g. F-684 = quality of care) and a letter A–L marking how serious and how widespread the problem was — we translate that grid into the plain tiers shown here. Wording is the official federal description.
Each letter is a CMS scope-severity level; highlighted ones are where this home has citations. A–C = no harm found; D–F = potential for harm; G–I = actual harm; J–L = immediate jeopardy. Within each band the later letter is the more widespread finding (an isolated G is one resident; a widespread I is a pattern), so rightward and downward is worse.
19 citations, most serious first. The 11 most serious are shown; the remaining 8 are one tap away and print in full.
- Immediate jeopardy · K2025-07-17 · tag F0697 — failed to manage pain — patternProvide safe, appropriate pain management for a resident who requires such services.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure pain management was provided to residents who require such services, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences for 3 of 9 residents (Resident #33, #42, and #83) reviewed for pain management. 1. The facility failed to provide effective pain medication for Resident #33 who admitted to the facility on [DATE] and received Hydrocodone-Acetaminophen 1 oral tablet 325 mg. per order, on all three shifts, for 7-15-2025 and 7-16-2025. Resident #33's pain levels remained high without physician notification or effective intervention. 2. The facility failed to provide effective pain medication for Resident #83 who re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] and received Acetaminophen-Codeine 1 300-30 mg. oral tablet on 7-15-2025 three times a day per order. Resident #83's pain levels stayed above a level 5 without effective relief or physician notification…
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 · F2025-07-17 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — widespreadDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
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 dispose of garbage and refuse properly. 1. The facility failed to ensure the garbage storage area was maintained in a sanitary condition to prevent the harborage and feeding of pest by failing to ensure garbage was kept off the ground, surrounding the facilities two outside trash dumpsters, and failed to keep the facility's grease trap dumpster closed. These failures could place residents at risk of contracting disease by attracting pest and disease carrying rodents. Findings included: 1. During an observation on 7-15-2025 at 8:00 AM, it was revealed that trash (used latex gloves, paper plates, used plastic wrappers, and various other trash) were on the ground surrounding the facility's two trash dumpsters. The facilities' only grease-trap-dumpster was observed to be open with greasy residue on top. These areas were observed to not have any borders or fencing around them and accessible to facility residents. The dumpster with the sliding door, was observed to be open and half full of trash. 2. During 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.
- Potential for harm · D2025-07-17 · tag F0550 — failed to protect resident dignity and rights — isolatedHonor the resident's right to a dignified existence, self-determination, communication, and to exercise his or her rights.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident was treated with respect and dignity and care for each resident in a manner and in an environment that promotes maintenance or enhancement of his or her quality of life for one (Resident #45) of one resident reviewed for resident rights. The facility failed to ensure CNA K was sitting down while feeding Resident #45 on 07/15/25. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of choking. Findings included: Record Review of Resident #45's face sheet, not dated, reflected a [AGE] year-old female, with an admission date of 01/31/25. Resident #45 had a diagnosis of Psychotic Disturbance (a condition where a person experiences a loss of contact with reality, characterized by symptoms like hallucinations), Mild Cognitive Impairment of uncertain or unknown etiology (a condition where individuals experience cognitive decline) , Difficulty walking, Need for Assistance with Personal Care, Syncope and Collapse (temporary…
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 · D2025-07-17 · 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 interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that resident who required dialysis received such services, consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #67) reviews for dialysis documentation. The facility failed to ensure Nurses documented ongoing assessments of Resident #67's condition and monitoring complications before and after dialysis treatments received at a certified dialysis facility. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of complications from dialysis due to the lack of documentation between the facility and dialysis center in the event of a medical event. Findings include: Record review of Resident #67's face sheet, dated 07/17/2025, revealed resident was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a readmission on [DATE]. Resident #67's admitting diagnoses included Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with Diabetic Neuropathy (caused…
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 before2025-07-17 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — isolatedProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 1 of 4 residents (Resident #70) reviewed for infection control. CNA A failed to put on Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) while providing toileting care for Resident #70, who was on Enhanced Barrier Precaution (EBP). This deficient practice could place residents at risk of transmission of communicable diseases and infections. Findings include: Record review of Resident #70's face sheet, dated 7/15/2025, revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident #70 had diagnoses which included stroke, chronic pain and muscle weakness. Record review of Resident #70's physician orders, dated 7/15/2025, revealed there was an order placed on 05/13/2025 which stated, Enhanced…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-07-17 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — isolatedMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
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, functional, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents, staff and the public for 1 of 4 halls reviewed (Hall 400) for environment. The facility failed to maintain Hall 400 in a safe and sanitary condition free from air conditioning condensation leaks from the ceiling onto the hallway floor. This failure could place residents at risk for injury and a decreased quality of life. Findings include: Observation on 07/15/2025 at 11:00 AM revealed water dripping from the ceiling between a fluorescent ceiling light and air vent onto the floor where a small puddle had formed and stained the floor tiles between rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] on the 400 hall. Observation on 7/15/2025 at 11:46 AM of the 400 hall between rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] revealed a wet floor sign was placed by the Administrator after she exited room [ROOM NUMBER] and noticed the water accumulation on the floor in the middle of the hallway. Observation on 7/17/2025 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 before2025-07-17 · tag F0925 — failed to control pests — isolatedMake 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 maintain an effective pest control program so that the facility was free of pests and rodents for one of one resident (Resident #25) room and in two public areas reviewed for pest control. The facility failed to ensure the facility was free of roaches in common areas and the dining room.The facility failed to ensure the facility was free of flies in Resident #25 room. This failure could place residents at risk of living in an unsanitary environment.Findings include: Observation on 07/15/25 at 7:30 AM one roach crawling across the floor by the receptionist's desk. Observation on 7/15/2025 at 11:15 AM of Resident #25's room revealed 7 flies; 5 of the flies were on her body/blanket/pillow. Observation on 07/15/25 at 12:33 PM revealed a roach crawling on a wall close to the trash can in the dining room. An attempted interview was made on 07/15/2025 at 11:15 AM with Resident #25. She was hard of hearing and was unable to understand questions asked. Interview on 7/15/2025 at 11:21AM with Housekeeper J revealed 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 · D2025-01-13 · tag F0583 — failed to protect personal privacy — isolatedKeep residents' personal and medical records private and confidential.
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 maintain privacy of medical records for one (Resident #2) of four residents reviewed for privacy of medical records. The facility failed to ensure the privacy of Resident #2's medical records was protected when RN A sent Resident #2's discharge summary (discharged [DATE]) and orders home with Resident #1 and Resident#1's family when Resident #1 was discharged on [DATE]. The deficient practice was identified as past noncompliance (PNC). The facility provided sufficient evidence that the alleged violation was investigated, corrected, no further incidents of unauthorized PHI sharing had occurred, and the facility was in substantial compliance prior to surveyor entrance on [DATE]. This failure could place the residents at risk of exposure of their personal and medical information to unauthorized individuals. Findings included: Review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated [DATE], reflected he was a [AGE] year-old male, admitted on [DATE], with a primary…
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 before2024-05-30 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based 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 five (Resident #28, Resident #2, Resident #18, Resident #47, and Resident #60) of twelve residents observed for infection control. 1. The facility failed to ensure that CNA C and CNA D changed their gloves, perform hand hygiene, and perform proper direction of wiping while providing incontinent care to Resident #28. 2. The facility failed to ensure MA B sanitized the blood pressure cuff between Resident #2, Resident #18, Resident #47, and Resident #60. These failures could place the residents at risk of cross-contamination and development of infection. Findings included: 1. Review of Resident #28's Face Sheet dated 05/28/2024 reflected resident was a [AGE] year-old female admitted on [DATE]. Resident #28 had a diagnosis 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.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2024-05-30 · 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 for one (hallway 100) of four hallways, one of one dining areas, and one of one kitchen observed for pest control. The facility did not maintain an effective pest control program to ensure the facility was free of gnats and flies in a hallway, kitchen, and dining room. This could place residents at risk for an unsanitary environment. Findings included: In an observation and interview on 5-28-2024 at 10:55 AM, revealed 2 flies landed on Resident #229 while he was being interviewed. Resident #229 said he has seen flies in his room since he admitted to the facility. Resident #229 stated having flies in his room made him feel like he was sleeping outside by cow manure. In an observation and interview on 5-28-2024 at 10:57 AM, the Resident #49 stated he has seen flies in his room and wishes they were gone. Resident #49 did not state how having flies in his room made him feel. In an observation 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 · D2024-05-30 · tag F0584 — failed to keep a safe, clean, comfortable home — isolatedHonor 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 a clean, comfortable environment and maintenance services for 1 (Resident #131) of 24 residents reviewed for clean and comfortable environment. The facility failed to maintain the flooring, covered vent and personal box fan in Resident #131's room. Floor tiles were broken, the vent cover was bent exposing a hole in the wall and the box fan was bent exposing the rotating fan blades. These failures could place the resident at risk for injury, and a decreased quality of life. Findings included: Review of Resident #131's face sheet reflected she was an [AGE] year-old female, originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE], with a diagnosis of other sequelae of cerebral infarction (Stroke), dysphagia, oral phase (difficult to control the bolus of food and transporting it to the back of the mouth), and other lack of coordination. Review of Resident #131's quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], reflected she was able to…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
Show the remaining 8 citations
- Potential for harm · D2024-05-30 · 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, was provided such care consistent with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents' goals and preferences for one(Resident #73) of eight residents reviewed for respiratory care. The facility failed to ensure Resident #73's nasal pillow mask (a small, soft, cushioned inserts that rests at the entrance of the nose) for CPAP (continuous positive airway pressure: machine used to deliver pressurized air through a mask to keep airways open) was stored properly. This failure could place the residents at risk for respiratory infection and not having their respiratory needs met. Findings included: Review of Resident #73's Face Sheet, dated 05/29/2024, reflected that resident was a [AGE] year-old male admitted on [DATE] he had a diagnosis of sleep apnea (a sleep disorder where breathing is interrupted repeatedly during sleep). 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.
- Potential for harm · E2023-04-20 · tag F0565 — failed to support the resident council — patternHonor the resident's right to organize and participate in resident/family groups in the facility.
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 a private meeting space for residents' monthly council meetings for 14 of 14 reviewed for resident council. The facility failed to provide a private space for resident council meetings. This failure could place residents, who attended resident council meetings, at risk of not being able to voice concerns due to a lack of privacy. Findings included: Observation and interview on 04/19/23 beginning at 2:00 PM, during a confidential resident group meeting with 14 residents, revealed the meeting was held in an open dining room, near the facility's central nurses' station. There were no doors that could be closed to ensure the residents' privacy during the meeting. Staff were observed walking through the area while the meeting was in progress. During the confidential group meeting, all fourteen residents revealed they always met in the open dining room area, and sometimes in a different area of the open dining area that was even closer to the nurses' station. Three residents stated residents were…
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 · E2023-04-20 · 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 observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure residents unable to carry out activities of daily living received the necessary services to maintain good nutrition, grooming, and personal and oral hygiene for three (Residents #40, #55, and #58) of 24 residents reviewed for hygiene. The facility failed to bathe and groom Residents #40, #55, and #58 on a consistent basis. This failure placed all residents at risk of discomfort and developing skin breakdown. Findings included: Review of Resident #40's admission Record revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included respiratory failure requiring the placement of a tracheostomy, brain damage from loss of oxygen, reduced mobility, contractures, and heart failure. Review of Resident #40's quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], revealed a BIMS score was not performed based on the resident's medical conditions. Her Functional Status indicated she was completely reliant on staff…
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 · E2023-04-20 · tag F0745 — failed to provide medically-related social services — patternProvide medically-related social services to help each resident achieve the highest possible quality of life.
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 medically-related social services to attain or maintain the highest practical physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident for two (Residents #41 and #186) of two residents reviewed for activities of daily living. The facility failed to assess Resident #41's and Resident #186's need for communication assistance to effectively communicate with staff. This failure could put residents at risk of having a loss of dignity and decreased quality of life. Findings included: Record review of Resident 41's face sheet dated 04/20/23 revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old female admitted the facility on 03/15/23 with diagnosis of Type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension (high blood pressure), depressive disorders, acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia (oxygen and carbon dioxide cannot be kept at normal levels), congestive heart failure, end stage renal disease, acquired absence of right leg below knee,…
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 · E2023-04-20 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — patternSafeguard resident-identifiable information and/or maintain medical records on each resident that are in accordance with accepted professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to maintain medical records in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices that were complete and accurately documented for four (Residents #29, #40, # 56, and #75) of five residents reviewed for accurate documentation. The facility failed to ensure documentation of cares provided by the CNAs was complete and accurate for Residents #29, #40, #56, and #75. This failure placed residents at risk of not receiving the proper level of care and services needed to maintain their health status. Findings included: Review of Resident #29's admission Record revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cerebral palsy, contractures, inability to swallow requiring placement of a gastric tube, inability to speak, and profound intellectual disabilities. Review of Resident #29's care plan, dated 04/12/23, revealed he was at risk for falls related to contractures and inability to move…
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 · D2023-04-20 · tag F0557 — isolatedHonor the resident's right to be treated with respect and dignity and to retain and use personal possessions.
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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure the resident had a right to be treated with respect and dignity regarding personal possessions, for one (Resident #30) of six residents reviewed for dignity issues. The facility violated Resident #30's rights by taking possession of her personal cell phone. Although this was initially done with consent, the facility failed to return the phone when Resident #30 requested it back. This failure could place all residents at risk of feeling uncomfortable and disrespected and could decrease residents' self-esteem and/or quality of life. Findings included: Record review of Resident #30's face sheet, dated 04/20/23, revealed Resident #30 was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included: multiple sclerosis (disease of central nervous system), schizoaffective disorder (mood disorder), dementia (memory loss), anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder. Record review of Resident #30'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 · D2023-04-20 · tag F0686 — failed to prevent and treat pressure sores (bedsores) — isolatedProvide 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, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure residents with pressure ulcers receives necessary treatment and services, consistent with professional standards of practice, to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new ulcers from developing for one (Resident #55) of four residents reviewed for wound care. The facility failed to ensure that Resident #55's pressure ulcer dressing was replaced after being removed during ADL care. This failure placed the resident at risk of developing an infection in her wound. Findings included: Review of Resident #55's admission Record revealed the resident was a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Stage 4 pressure ulcer, morbid obesity, muscle weakness, paralysis, and hospice care. Review of Resident #55's admission MDS, dated [DATE], revealed a BIMS score of 15, indicating she was cognitively intact. Her Functional Status revealed she required extensive assistance with all of her…
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 · D2023-04-20 · tag F0692 — failed to prevent malnutrition and dehydration — isolatedProvide enough food/fluids to maintain a resident's health.
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 offer sufficient fluid intake to maintain proper hydration and health for 1 (Resident #68) of eighteen residents reviewed for hydration, in that: The facility failed provide/offer any means of hydration in between breakfast and lunch meals between 04/18/23-04/20/23 for Resident #68. This deficient practice placed residents at risk of dehydration, dry skin, Urinary Tract Infection's, and a decreased quality of life. Findings included: Review of Resident #68's face sheet dated 04/20/23 reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia, Aphasia (inability to comprehend) and facial weakness following cerebral infarction, hemiplegia (complete loss of strength on one side of the body) and hemiparesis (difficulty standing or walking) following cerebrovascular disease affecting left dominant side, dysphagia oropharyngeal phase (difficulty swallowing). Review of 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.
“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
$122,336 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $122,336 — penalty dated 2025-07-17
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 OPCO SKILLED MANAGEMENT — 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 | 2.3 | -1.3 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 2 of 5 | 2.2 | -0.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 1 of 5 | 1.7 | -0.7 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 4 of 5 | 4.3 | -0.3 vs chain |
The other 65 homes this chain runs (chain average 2.3★, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CORYELL COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AUTHORITY | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST | 100% | since 08/16/2018 |
| BYROM, DAVID | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER | — | since 08/16/2018 |
| SKYLINE POST ACUTE, LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 08/16/2018 |
| GARETZ, DAVID | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | — | since 08/16/2018 |
| GURWITZ, SOLOMON | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/24/2025 |
| HAGINS, ELIZABETH | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/31/2025 |
| KAPLAN, ESTHER | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/24/2025 |
| KAPLAN, MORDECHAI | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 03/31/2025 |
| MINDLE, ADAM | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/24/2025 |
| UNGER, JEFFREY | Individual | INDIVIDUAL IS AN OWNER, PARTNER OR TRUSTEE OF ANY ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 06/24/2025 |
| 2129 SKYLINE DRIVE TX, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/16/2018 |
| CONTINUUM REHAB GROUP LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/16/2018 |
| GIBRALTAR TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/16/2018 |
| MAGNOLIA REALTY, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/16/2018 |
| MILLENNIAL ACQUISITIONS, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/16/2018 |
| MONTGOMERY SKY TRUST | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/16/2018 |
| OPCO CA SKILLED MGMT INC. | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/16/2018 |
| OPCO TEXAS SKILLED MGMT LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/16/2018 |
| OREGON REALTY, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/16/2018 |
| SCOOPER REALTY, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/16/2018 |
| WINDSOR SQUARE REALTY, LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/16/2018 |
| AKINMERESE, OLAWALE | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 01/01/2019 |
| MIRELES, CANDI | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/20/2023 |
13 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 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in TX
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Texas Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 455457. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-07-17, 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.