James L. West Center for Dementia Care
1111 Summit Ave, Fort Worth, TX 76102 · Non profit - Corporation · 112 certified beds · (817) 877-1199 Medicare only — no Medicaid
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- lower-than-typical staff turnover (34% vs 45% nationally) — better care continuity
- CMS has flagged it for abuse
- it has abuse, neglect, or exploitation citations (F0600, F0604, F0607, F0610) — most recent Jun 2025
- it has a citation for its abuse-prevention policies, restraint use, or reporting and investigating of allegations (F0609) — cited below the harm level, meaning inspectors found the process wanting but did not find a resident harmed
- inspectors cited 5 immediate-jeopardy problems — the most serious level
- inspectors recorded 3 serious findings as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (17) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $63,236 in federal fines (most recent 2025-06-12)
- its payroll- and facility-reported staffing and quality-measure scores sit well above its independent inspection score
- its independent health-inspection rating is low (2/5)
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) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 5 of 5 |
Worth a closer look. This home's staffing and quality-measure ratings run 3 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, and staffing on its payroll (PBJ) submissions — 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 | 5 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 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 2 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 | 34.7% | 15.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 6.3% | 3.0% | 5.4% | worse |
| 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 | 1.2% | 0.8% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 3.0% | 2.4% | 6.5% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents who were physically restrained | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | better than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with falls causing major injury | 3.9% | 3.3% | 3.3% | worse |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 18.1% | 14.0% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 28.3% | 18.0% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.9% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 1.8% | 3.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 19.3% | 13.4% | 21.2% | typical |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 26.7% | 9.6% | 17.1% | worse |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 6.2% | 1.5% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 92.7% | 88.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 6.0% | 25.7% | 22.6% | better |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 8.1% | 12.3% | 12.0% | better |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 0.88 | 2.17 | 1.67 | better |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 0.62 | 2.06 | 1.80 | 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.
45.9% 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 43 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 65.5% of this home’s Medicare short-stay residents left it at or above the ability to care for themselves and move around that CMS predicted for them, across 55 stays in Oct 2024–Sep 2025. The median of the 11,061 homes CMS publishes this for is 56.6%. Read it beside the getting-home figure, not instead of it: unlike the two measures above, CMS makes no better-or-worse call on this one and publishes no confidence interval for it, so this is a comparison and not a verdict — but it is the short-stay measure that separates homes most, and the one to ask about.
Therapy staffing: this home’s payroll records show 0.37 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 63% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 10% of this home’s weekday level — it runs some therapy at the weekend, at a lower level than on weekdays. The median home that reports therapy runs 13% — weekday-focused therapy is the industry norm, not a shortfall. But recovery does not pause on a Saturday: ask what the weekend actually looks like here.
This section is about rehab stays, not living here. Most of this page — the stars, the quality measures, the inspection record — describes the home the way a permanent resident experiences it. These figures describe the short Medicare stay after a hospital discharge: a hip, a stroke, a bad infection, six weeks and home. They are different residents, different staff, often a different wing. Therapy hours are per resident in the building, not per rehab patient — the count includes every long-stay resident, and they mostly get no therapy at all. So a home with a small rehab wing inside a large nursing population reads low here even if its rehab patients get plenty of therapy, and a mostly-rehab home reads high. Use it to compare homes doing similar work, ask what a rehab resident actually gets in a day, and remember that CMS does not publish therapy minutes per patient — nobody does.
See every short-stay measure CMS publishes for this home
| Measure | This home | U.S. median | Period covered | CMS’s call |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Got home and stayed homeRate of successful return to home or community from a SNF | 45.9%CMS range 35.9–58.1 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 9.6%CMS range 5.9–14.7 | 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 | 65.5% | 56.6% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Self-care at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves at discharge | 52.7% | 52.8% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Moving around at dischargePercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to move around at discharge | 58.2% | 50.0% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication problems followed upPercentage of residents whose medications were reviewed and who received follow-up care when medication issues were identified | 100.0% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Medication list to the next providerPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the next health care setting | not reported — The number of residents or resident stays is too small to report. Call the facility to discuss this quality measure. | — | ||
| Medication list to the familyPercentage of residents where the SNF provided a current medication list to the resident, family, and/or caregiver at final discharge | 97.6% | 98.7% | Oct 2024–Sep 2025 | CMS makes no comparison for this measure |
| Falls with major injuryPercentage of SNF residents who experience one or more falls with major injury during their SNF stay | 5.9% | 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 | 6.5%CMS range 3.6–12.0 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.87 | 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 112 beds and averages 98.9 residents a day — about 88% occupied, or roughly 13 beds typically open. It runs fairly full. 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 4.57 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.42 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.86 is at or above 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 4.30 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.68 on weekdays — 8% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.47 to 0.29 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 34% is below the national median of 45%. 1 administrator has left in the past year.
Payroll-based (PBJ) staffing hours, as reported for Jan–Mar 2026 (CMS PBJ CY2026Q1) — the most recent quarter CMS has published, so they can lag a change of operator or staffing agency. Higher is generally better. Registered-nurse coverage and weekend staffing are the numbers families most often overlook — an RN on site matters most when something goes wrong, and coverage usually thins on weekends. High turnover means residents rarely see the same caregiver twice. One caveat: these are hours as reported, not adjusted for how sick or heavy-care this home’s residents are. CMS separately publishes a case-mix-adjusted view; we show the reported hours. A home caring for higher-acuity residents needs more hours to deliver the same care, so compare these figures against homes doing similar work, and read them next to the inspection record rather than alone.
Inspection trend
Deficiencies are 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.
17 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2024-10-11 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from abuse for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was free from physical and verbal abuse when CNA B pinned Resident #1's hands and arms to the bed, used his body weight on Resident #1 to force him to comply with receiving care and told Resident #1 not to play with him on 08/06/24. An IJ was identified on 09/25/24. The IJ template was provided to the facility on [DATE] at 5:17 PM. While the IJ was removed on 09/26/24, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of isolated and a severity level of potential for more than minimal harm because all staff had not been trained on the plan of removal. This failure placed residents at risk for abuse. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's face sheet, dated 09/26/24, reflected the resident was an [AGE] year-old male who admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Record review of Resident #1's Quarterly…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-10-11 · tag F0604 — failed to not use physical restraints improperly — isolatedEnsure that each resident is free from the use of physical restraints, unless needed for medical treatment.
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 right to be free from physical restraints imposed for purpose of convenience and not required to treat the resident's medical symptoms was provided for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for restraints. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 had the right to be free from restraints when CNA B physically pinned the resident's hands and arms to the bed while he provided care to him on 08/06/24. After administrative review and IJ was identified on 10/11/24. The IJ template was provided to the facility on [DATE] at 8:30 AM. While the IJ was removed on 10/11/24, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of isolated and a severity level of potential for more than minimal harm because all staff had not been trained on the plan of removal. This failure could place resident at risk of not being treated with respect and dignity, limit residents right to choose, take away independence, or cause severe injury. Findings…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2024-10-11 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement written policies and procedures that prohibit and prevent the neglect of residents for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse. The facility failed to implement the facility's written policies and procedures to prohibit and prevent abuse of Resident #1 when CNA B pinned Resident #1's hands and arms to the bed, used his body weight on Resident #1 to force him to comply with receiving care, and told Resident #1 not to play with him on 08/06/24. The facility failed to ensure CNA B (an agency CNA) had been trained on how to care for Resident #1, a resident who refused care, and also had dementia training prior to beginning the shift. An IJ was identified on 09/25/24. The IJ template was provided to the facility on [DATE] at 5:17 PM. While the IJ was removed on 09/26/24, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of isolated and a severity level of a potential for more than minimal harm because all 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.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-10-11 · tag F0610 — failed to investigate and act on abuse reports — isolatedRespond appropriately to all alleged violations.
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 have evidence that all alleged violations were thoroughly investigated and prevent further potential abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment while the investigation is in progress for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse. The facility failed to implement their abuse policy and investigate alleged or suspected physical abuse when Resident #1's RP told them CNA B continued to provide care after the resident had refused and told them CNA B was rough during care leaving red marks to Resident #1's face. An IJ was identified on 09/25/24. The IJ template was provided to the facility on [DATE] at 5:17 PM. While the IJ was removed on 09/26/24, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of isolated and a severity level of potential for more than minimal harm because all staff had not been trained on the plan of removal. This failure could place all residents at risk for abuse and psychosocial harm. Findings included:…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2024-08-06 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from abuse for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse. The facility failed to ensure CNA B did not verbally and physically abuse Resident #1 on 04/29/24. The noncompliance was identified as past noncompliance. The Immediate Jeopardy began on 04/29/24 and ended on 04/29/24. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the investigation began. This failure could affect the residents at the facility and place them at risk for physical, verbal, and/or psychosocial harm. Findings included: Review of Resident #1's electronic health record revealed she was an [AGE] year-old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident #1's quarterly MDS Assessment, dated 07/20/24, reflected she had a BIMS score of 02 indicating severe cognitive impairment. Further review revealed she had active diagnoses of Alzheimer's disease (a gradual decline in memory, thinking, behavior and social skills),…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · Jcited before2024-08-06 · tag F0607 — failed to have anti-abuse policies — isolatedDevelop and implement policies and procedures to prevent abuse, neglect, and theft.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement written policies and procedures that prohibit mistreatment, neglect, and abuse of residents, for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse. The facility failed to ensure Resident #1 was free from abuse per the policy. The noncompliance was identified as past noncompliance. The Immediate Jeopardy began on 04/29/24 and ended on 04/29/24. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the investigation began. These failures could place residents at risk for physical harm, psychosocial harm, unsafe environment, and further abuse. Findings included: Review of the facility's policy, revised March 2018, and titled Abuse and Neglect reflected: 1. 'Abuse' is defined at [symbol]483.5 as 'the willful infliction of injury, reasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain or mental anguish. Abuse also includes the deprivation by an individual, including a caretaker, of goods or services that are necessary…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Immediate jeopardy · J2024-04-26 · tag F0684 — failed to provide proper treatment and quality of care — isolatedProvide appropriate treatment and care according to orders, resident’s preferences and goals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to, based on the comprehensive assessment of a resident, ensure that residents received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the resident's choices for one of eight residents (Resident #1) reviewed for quality of care. Resident #1, who was on aspirin, had an unwitnessed fall with head injury and a significant amount of bleeding from his head. He was transferred into the wheelchair and showered by LVN D and CNA E prior to the completion of a full assessment. Resident #1 was subsequently sent to the hospital and diagnosed with a displaced hip fracture which required surgery. An Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) was identified on 04/25/24. While the IJ was removed on 04/26/24 at 3:30 PM, the facility remained out of compliance at a scope of isolated with potential for more than minimal harm that is not immediate jeopardy, due to the facility's need to evaluate 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.
- Actual harm · Gcited before2025-06-12 · tag F0600 — failed to protect residents from abuse and neglect — isolatedProtect each resident from all types of abuse such as physical, mental, sexual abuse, physical punishment, and neglect by anybody.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from abuse for 2 of 5 residents (Resident #30 and Resident #79) reviewed for abuse. The facility failed to ensure Resident #79 was free from abuse on 10/07/24. Resident #30, who had a diagnosis of dementia and was relocated from a private room to a semi-private room with roommate Resident #79. The early morning of 10/07/24, Resident #30 woke up and was startled when seeing roommate Resident #79 in the room, which resulted in Resident #30 physically assaulting Resident #79 placing the resident at risk for fear. The noncompliance was identified as past noncompliance (PNC). The noncompliance began on 10/07/24 and ended on 10/11/24. The facility had corrected the noncompliance before the investigation began. This failure could place residents at risk of accidents, injuries, and hospitalization. Findings included: Record review of Resident #30's admission Record dated 06/12/25 reflected the resident was an [AGE]…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-06-12 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — patternProvide 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 ensure that a resident who was incontinent of bladder received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections for two of two residents (Residents #47 and #73) reviewed for catheter care. The facility failed to ensure both Resident #47 and Resident #73 had a physician's order for an indwelling catheter. This failure could place residents who had incontinence at risk for infections and improper treatment. Findings included: Record review of Resident #47's face sheet dated 06/12/25, revealed the resident was an [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Record review of Resident #47's Comprehensive MDS assessment dated [DATE] reflected Resident #47 had a BIMS score of 05 indicating Resident #47 had a severe cognitive impairment with diagnoses including Depression (persistent feeling of sadness), Anxiety Disorder (mental health conditions of excessive fear, worry, dread that interferes with daily life),…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-06-12 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — patternProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services (including procedures that assure the accurate acquiring, receiving, dispensing, and administering of all drugs and biologicals) to meet the needs of each resident, for two of six residents (Resident #21 and Resident #38) reviewed for medication administration. 1. LVN G failed to administer Timolol Maleate Ophthalmic Solution 0.5 % (Timolol Maleate (Ophth) (a prescription medicine used to treat glaucoma) to Residents #21 and #38 as ordered by the physician. 2. LVN A failed to order Timolol maleate Ophthalmic solution 0.5% (Timolol Maleate (Ophth) (a prescription medicine used to treat glaucoma) for Residnet#21 and #38 after administering the last dose on 06/10/25. These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving the intended therapeutic benefits of prescribed medications. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #21's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 04/13/25, revealed an [AGE] year-old…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2025-06-12 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — patternEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the medication error rate was not five percent (%) or greater. The facility had a medication error rate of 6.25% based on 2 errors out of 32 opportunities, which involved two of six residents (Resident #21 and Resident #38) reviewed for medication errors. LVN G Failed to administer Timolol Maleate Ophthalmic Solution 0.5 % (Timolol Maleate (Ophth) (a prescription medicine used to treat glaucoma ) to Residents #21 and #38 as ordered by the physician. These failures could place residents at risk of not receiving the intended therapeutic benefits of prescribed medications. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #21's quarterly MDS assessment, dated 04/13/25, reflected the resident was an [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The assessment reflected the resident's cognition was severely impaired with a BIMS of 7. The resident had diagnosis which included acute angle-closure glaucoma,…
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 · D2025-06-12 · tag F0842 — failed to keep accurate, complete medical records — isolatedSafeguard 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 interview and record review, in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices, the facility failed to maintain medical records on each resident that are complete; accurately documented; readily accessible; and systematically organized for two of five residents (Residents #22 and #54) completed and accurate records. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #22's ordered Buspirone medication included an indication for use in his physician's orders. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident #54's ordered Cymbalta medication included an indication for use in her physician's orders. The facility failures could place residents at risk of having inaccurate medical records. Findings included: 1. Record review of Resident #22's admission Record, dated 06/12/25, reflected the resident was a [AGE] year-old male who originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Record review of Resident #22's Annual MDS Assessment, dated 04/06/25, reflected he had a BIMS score of 06,…
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 · D2024-10-11 · tag F0609 — failed to report abuse allegations — isolatedTimely report suspected abuse, neglect, or theft and report the results of the investigation to proper authorities.
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 all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment were reported immediately to the State survey Agency in accordance with State law through( established procedures for 1 of 7 residents (Resident #1) reviewed for abuse and neglect. The facility failed to report an abuse allegation made by Resident #1's RP's on 08/06/24 when it was alleged CNA B was rough and continued providing care to Resident #1 even though he refused leaving red marks to Resident #1's face. This failure could place residents at risk for abuse and/or neglect . Findings included: Record review of the facility's Abuse and Neglect- Clinical Protocol policy, revised March 2018, reflected: 1. 'Abuse' is defined at [symbol]483.5 as 'the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain or mental anguish .Instances of abuse of all residents, irrespective of any mental or…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2024-04-18 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — patternDevelop the complete care plan within 7 days of the comprehensive assessment; and prepared, reviewed, and revised by a team of health professionals.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to revise and review the care plan for 2 of 5 residents (Residents #2 and #74) reviewed for comprehensive care plans. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident # 2's care plan after he was unable to use the call light system to call for help. 2. The facility failed to revise and review Resident #74's care plan after admission to include Hospice in a timely manner. 3. The facility failed to revise and review Resident #74's use of suprapubic catheter. These failures could lead to the residents not receiving the care they require, resulting in injuries. Findings included: Review of Resident #2's undated admission Record revealed the resident was an [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia, diabetes, muscle weakness, and repeated falls. Review of Resident #2's quarterly MDS, dated [DATE], revealed a BIMS score of 3 indicating he was severely cognitively impaired. His Functional Status indicted…
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 · D2024-04-18 · tag F0635 — isolatedProvide doctor's orders for the resident's immediate care at the time the resident was 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 record review and interview, the facility failed to ensure at the time residents were admitted they had physician orders for the resident's immediate care for 1 (Resident #74) of 5 residents reviewed for admission orders. The facility failed to enter physician's orders for Resident #74's hospice and catheter care. This failure could cause the residents to have incomplete care with hospice and improper incontinent care and urinary tract infections. Findings included: Review of Resident #74's undated admission Record revealed the resident was an [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Dementia, Type 2 Diabetes (high blood sugar), Hypothyroidism (lack of thyroid hormones), Hypertension (high blood pressure). Review of Resident #74's MDS, dated [DATE], revealed Resident #74 had a BIMS of 14 indicating cognition was intact. Resident #74 required use of indwelling suprapubic catheter. The MDS did not indicate Resident #74 entered the facility on hospice or was 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.
- Potential for harm · D2024-04-18 · tag F0641 — isolatedEnsure each resident receives an accurate 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to revise and review the care plan for 1 of 5 residents (Resident #74) reviewed accuracy of assessments. The facility failed to indicate on Resident #74's Minimum Data Set that he entered the facility on Hospice care. These failures could lead to the residents not receiving the care they require, resulting in injuries. Findings included: Review of Resident #74's undated admission Record revealed the resident was an [AGE] year-old male admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Dementia, Type 2 Diabetes (high blood sugar), Hypothyroidism (lack of thyroid hormones), Hypertension (high blood pressure). Review of Resident #74's MDS dated [DATE], revealed Resident #74 had a BIMS of 14 indicating cognition was intact. MDS did not indicate Resident #74 entered the facility on Hospice or was on Hospice during his stay. Review of Resident #74's baseline care plan, dated 02/27/24, indicated Resident #74 was admitted with no…
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 · D2024-02-21 · tag F0689 — failed to keep residents free of avoidable accidents; supervise adequately — isolatedEnsure that a nursing home area is free from accident hazards and provides adequate supervision to prevent accidents.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident environment remained free of accidents hazards and each resident received adequate supervision and assistance devices to prevent accidents for 1 (Resident #1) of 3 residents reviewed for accidents hazards. The facility failed to ensure that Resident #1 who was a two-person transfer was transferred as a two person transfer instead of a one-person transfer. This failure could place residents at risk of falls or injuries. Findings included: Review of Resident #1's electronic face sheet dated 02/21/2024, revealed an [AGE] year-old male who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia (term used to describe a group of symptoms affecting memory, thinking and social abilities), Parkinson's disease (progressive disorder that affects the nervous system and the parts of the body controlled by the nerves), and hypertension (high blood pressure). Review of Resident #1's quarterly MDS 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.
“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
$63,236 in federal fines across 9 penalties. 1 Medicare payment denial on record.
- $15,015 — penalty dated 2025-06-12
- $17,242 — penalty dated 2024-10-11
- $8,827 — penalty dated 2024-08-06
- $9,872 — penalty dated 2024-04-18
- $2,797 — penalty dated 2023-10-30
- $2,447 — penalty dated 2023-10-23
- $2,098 — penalty dated 2023-10-17
- $1,764 — penalty dated 2023-10-10
- $3,174 — penalty dated 2023-09-18
- Medicare payment denial — starting 2025-07-11 for 16 days
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.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Share | Since |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JAMES L WEST PRESBYTERIAN SPECIAL CARE CENTER | Organization | 5% OR GREATER DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | 100% | since 01/01/1993 |
| HARDING, CHERYL | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 02/26/2018 |
| BALDRIDGE, HUNTER | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 09/15/2025 |
| MANUEL, TANISHA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/19/2022 |
| KNEBL, JANICE | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/01/1993 |
| ROSS, SARAH | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | — | since 08/20/2020 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 10 rows in the source record cover these 6 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted.
1 organizational owner listed — a facility can be part of a larger chain. CMS ownership data is known to under-report private-equity and REIT ties; treat as a starting point.
Follow the money — this home’s finances
Where a nursing home’s revenue comes from and where it goes — including money paid to companies under the same ownership. Most consumer sites never show this; we reproduce it straight from the Medicare cost report.
A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2024). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in TX
CMS lists this home as Medicare-certified only — it is not Medicaid-certified, so it generally cannot accept Medicaid as payment for a long-term stay. That makes it one of roughly 545 homes nationally where a Medicaid-funded placement is not an option. If you expect to rely on Medicaid, ask the home directly before you tour, and see the Texas Medicaid page for homes that do.
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 745019. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2025-06-12, 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.