Friendship Haven Healthcare And Rehabilitation Cen
1500 Sunset Dr, Friendswood, TX 77546 · For profit - Limited Liability company · 150 certified beds · (281) 992-4300 Medicare & Medicaid certified
This home has serious findings on its record. Read them closely before you consider it.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- it has an abuse, neglect, or exploitation citation (F0600), cited Nov 2024
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- inspectors recorded 1 serious finding as past non-compliance — the problem was found, fixed, and verified before the survey closed, so it is history rather than a current condition, but it is still worth asking what changed
- a high number of inspection citations overall (15) — worth reading through, though larger and more-often-surveyed homes tend to accrue more lower-severity tags
- the CMS record shows $8,018 in federal fines (most recent 2024-11-07)
- its payroll-based staffing 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 | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 2 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 3 of 5 |
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 | 3 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 4 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 1 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 improved from 2 to 4 stars. From monthly CMS archive snapshots.
Horizontal axis runs 2025-02 to 2026-06. That is where CMS’s monthly archive ends, so the right-hand edge of each line is that month — not today.
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 | 13.0% | 15.8% | 15.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.8% | 3.0% | 5.4% | typical |
| 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 | 0.6% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 19.0% | 14.0% | 16.1% | worse |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 13.4% | 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 | 3.1% | 3.8% | 4.7% | better |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 13.0% | 13.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 9.2% | 9.6% | 17.1% | better |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.1% | 1.5% | 1.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 98.0% | 88.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 30.4% | 25.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 17.8% | 12.3% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 3.73 | 2.17 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 2.02 | 2.06 | 1.80 | worse |
* 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.
41.2% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that worse than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 113 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 57.1% 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 56 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 0.34 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 58% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 36% 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 | 41.2%CMS range 32.3–50.3 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | worse than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 13.6%CMS range 10.7–17.9 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 57.1% | 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 | 57.1% | 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 | 46.4% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 100.0% | 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 | 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 | 1.0% | 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 | 7.8%CMS range 4.9–14.1 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 0.90 | 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 150 beds and averages 120.0 residents a day — about 80% occupied, or roughly 30 beds typically open. It usually has some room. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 3.20 hrs/resident/day is below the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.37 is below the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 1.97 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 2.92 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 3.31 on weekdays — 12% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.39 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 50% 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.
15 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2024-11-07 · 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 had the right to be free from abuse for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #79) reviewed for abuse. The facility failed to keep Resident #79 free from abuse when RN A yelled at and hit the resident while attempting to give her medication on 10/6/24 at 4:00 AM. The noncompliance was identified as past noncompliance (PNC). The facility corrected the noncompliance before the survey began. This failure could place residents at risk of experiencing and enduring abuse causing a decreased quality of life. Findings include: Record review of Resident #79's face sheet revealed an original admission on [DATE] and Resident #79 was a [AGE] year-old female. Diagnoses included: acute kidney failure (can't filter waste from the blood), hypertension (force of blood against the artery wall was high), COPD (progressive lung disease), Parkinson's (disorder of the central nervous system that affects movement), and epilepsy (a disorder in the brain…
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 · G2023-09-01 · 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 the 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 out of three residents (Resident number # 91) reviewed for quality of care. - The facility failed to promptly assess, identify, and treat skin tear under the left fold before the abdomen, rashes close to the under-abdomen fold, and groin on Resident #91 and failed to ensure interventions were implemented to treat and prevent further skin deterioration. This failure could place residents at risk for a delay of care or treatment, pain, and suffering. Findings include: Resident #91 Record review of Resident #91 face sheet revealed a [AGE] year-old female was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses were diabetes mellitus (elevated levels of blood…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2026-02-20 · tag F0755 — failed to provide safe pharmacy services — isolatedProvide pharmaceutical services to meet the needs of each resident and employ or obtain the services of a licensed pharmacist.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on 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) of enteral feeding for 1 (Resident #56) of 8 residents reviewed for enteral nutrition.The facility failed to ensure LVN A used the appropriate procedure for checking placement and administering flushes and medication during medication administration. The facility failed to ensure LVN A did not use air to check for placement. The facility failed to ensure LVN A used the appropriate amount of water to dilute medication and to flush in between medication administration.These failures could have placed residents with a gastrostomy tube at risk for complications, aspiration, and pneumonia.Findings included:Record review of Resident #56's face sheet dated 01/19/2026 revealed an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Diagnoses included: cerebral infarction (a type 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 · D2026-02-20 · tag F0759 — failed to keep medication error rate low — isolatedEnsure medication error rates are not 5 percent or greater.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the medication error rate was not five percent or greater. The facility had a medication error rate of 12%, based on 3 errors out of 25 opportunities, which involved 1 (Resident #56) of 5 residents reviewed for medication errors.The facility failed to ensure/ prevent when LVN A left a substantial amount of medication residue for Amlodipine 5mg give 1 tab via G-tube two times a day, Coreg Oral Tablet 6.25 MG (Carvedilol) give 1 tablet via G-Tube two times a day, and Lansoprazole 30mg give 1 tablet via G-Tube two times a day in the medication cups after medications were administered through a g-tube to Resident #56. These failures could have placed residents at risk of inadequate therapeutic outcomes, increased negative side effects, and a decline in health.Findings included:Record review of Resident #56's face sheet dated 01/19/2026, revealed an [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included:…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-04 · tag F0627 — isolatedEnsure the transfer/discharge meets the resident's needs/preferences and that the resident is prepared for a safe transfer/discharge.
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 permit each resident to remain in the facility, and not transfer or discharge the resident from the facility unless the discharge was necessary for the resident's welfare and the resident's needs could not be met in the facility for 1 of 4 residents (CR #2) reviewed for discharge requirements. The facility failed to ensure CR #2 was readmitted to the facility, after being sent to the hospital for evaluations due to change in condition. This failure could place discharged residents and residents residing in the facility at risk of being discharged and not allowed to return to the facility causing a disruption in their care and/or services.A record review of CR #2's electronic face sheet revealed reflected an [AGE] year-old female who was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. CR #2's diagnosis included Dementia, type 2 diabetes mellitus, history of falling, peripheral vascular disease (disorder of the blood vessels),…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2025-09-04 · tag F0644 — isolatedCoordinate assessments with the pre-admission screening and resident review program; and referring for services as 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 interviews and record review, the facility failed to incorporate recommendations from a PASRR evaluation report into a resident assessment, care planning, and transition of care for 1 (Resident #1) of 3 residents reviewed for PASRR services.The facility failed to submit Resident #1's NFSS in the LTC online portal within 20 days after the IDT meeting. This failure could place residents who were PASRR positive at risk of not getting the PASRR services for a better quality of life and could lead to a decline in health. Record review of Resident #1's face sheet dated 09/03/25 revealed a [AGE] year-old female, admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included- Profound intellectual disabilities, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, bilateral primary osteoarthritis of knee, (tissue wears down) prediabetes, gastric ulcer, anemia (Low Blood count), age-related osteoporosis, and end stage renal diseaseRecord review of Resident #1's PASRR evaluation dated 12/27/25 indicated Resident #1 was…
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 · E2025-03-29 · tag F0880 — failed to prevent and control infections — patternProvide and implement an infection prevention and control program.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designed to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections for 3 of 9 residents (Resident #1, Resident #2, and Resident #3) reviewed for infection control practices. 1. The facility failed to ensure ADON A and the Restorative Aide applied enhanced barrier precautions while transferring Resident # 1 from her wheelchair to her bed. 2. The facility failed to ensure that CNA J and CNA G sanitized their hands when providing incontinent care to Resident #2 and Resident #3. These failures could place residents at risk of cross-contamination and infections leading to illness. Findings included: Record review of Resident #1's undated face sheet indicated the resident was a 92-year- old female who was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of dementia (a group of thinking…
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 · E2024-11-07 · tag F0809 — failed to serve meals on a reasonable schedule — patternEnsure meals and snacks are served at times in accordance with resident’s needs, preferences, and requests. Suitable and nourishing alternative meals and snacks must be provided for residents who want to eat at non-traditional times or outside of scheduled meal times.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received meals at regular times comparable to normal mealtimes in the community or in accordance with resident needs and preferences for three of three days (11/04/24, 11/05/24, and 11/06/24) reviewed for frequency of meals. -The facility failed to ensure residents received meals at regularly scheduled times for breakfast and lunch on 11/04/24, breakfast and lunch on 11/05/24, and breakfast on 11/06/24. This failure could place residents who eat from the facility's kitchen, at risk of loss of appetite, weight loss, increased hunger, thirst, frustration, and decreased feelings of self-worth. Findings included: Observation and interview with the Dietary Manager on 11/04/24 at 8:25 AM, revealed the posted mealtime was 7:30 AM for breakfast,: 11:30 AM for lunch, and 4:30 PM for dinner. During an interview with the dietary Manager, she said mealtime were 7:30 AM for breakfast, 11:30 AM for Lunch, and 4:30 PM for dinner. Observation and interviews on 11/04/24 at 9:00AM revealed no breakfast trays…
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 · D2024-09-04 · 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 provide a safe, sanitary, and homelike environment for 2 of the 5 residents observed for environment. The facility failed to ensure Resident # 1 and Resident #2 room was sanitary and homelike. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment to attain or maintain their highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial wellbeing. The findings included: Based on observation on 9/4/24 at 8:45am Resident #1 and Resident #2 room revealed it was not clean. There was a bag under the bed, tissue paper on the floor and residue under both beds, the floor was sticky, the walls behind each bed revealed paint removed from the wall headboard leaning forward on Resident's #1 bed, floor mate(sponage type mate used to prevent injuries from falls) for Resident's #1 was dirty and stained. Record Review of Resident #1's history and physical dated 1/5/24 reflected a [AGE] year-old female…
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 · F2023-09-01 · tag F0812 — failed to store, cook, and serve food safely — widespreadProcure food from sources approved or considered satisfactory and store, prepare, distribute and serve food in accordance with professional standards.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to store, prepare, distribute, and serve food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety in 1 of 1 kitchen reviewed for food procurement in that 4 Frozen rolls of 10 lb. ground beef in a pan being thawed in the sink. This failure could affect residents who ate food from the kitchen and place them at risk of food borne illness and disease. Findings Included: Observation of the facility kitchen on 08/29/23 at 8:30 AM revealed 4- 10 lb. frozen ground beef in a pan being thawed in the sink faucet water running with a temperature of 91 degrees Fahrenheit. Ground beef had an internal temperature of 73.8 degrees Fahrenheit indicating that the temperature is in the Danger Zone (41 degrees Fahrenheit to 135 degrees Fahrenheit). Interview with the Food Service Manager on 08/29/23 at 8:35 AM he stated that ground beef temperature of 73.8 degrees Fahrenheit indicates that the frozen beef was inappropriately being thawed. He also stated that he is responsible for training staff on thawing requirements…
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 · E2023-09-01 · tag F0677 — failed to help fully-dependent residents with daily care — patternProvide care and assistance to perform activities of daily living for any resident who is unable.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure a resident who was unable to carry out activities of daily living (ADLs) received the necessary services to maintain nutrition, grooming and personal and oral hygiene for 4 of 8 residents (Resident #91, Resident #11, Resident #50 and, Resident #4) reviewed for ADLs. 1. The facility failed to ensure Resident #91 was provided shower or bed bath for two weeks which caused the resident's skin to be dry and flaky. 2. The facility failed to ensure Resident # 11 was provided grooming (shaving and nail care). 3. The facility failed to ensure Resident # 50 was provided grooming (nail care). 4. The facility failed to ensure Resident #4 was provided grooming (shaving) These failures could place residents at risk for discomfort, and dignity issues. Findings included: Resident #91 Record review of Resident #91 face sheet revealed a [AGE] year-old female was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. 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 · D2023-09-01 · tag F0580 — failed to tell family and doctor about changes — isolatedImmediately tell the resident, the resident's doctor, and a family member of situations (injury/decline/room, etc.) that affect the resident.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to immediately inform the resident's physician when there was a significant change in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #91) reviewed for notification of changes in that: The facility failed to notify Resident #91's physician when Resident #91 presented with skin tear under her skin fold before the abdomen, rashes on the abdomial folds and peri - area. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of not having their physician informed when there was a change in condition resulting in a delay in medical intervention and decline in health. Findings include: Resident #91 Record review of Resident #91 face sheet revealed a [AGE] year-old female was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses were diabetes mellitus (elevated levels of blood glucose), Morbid obesity (weight is more than 80 to 100 pounds above ideal body weight),…
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 · D2023-09-01 · tag F0760 — failed to prevent significant medication errors — isolatedEnsure that residents are free from significant medication errors.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident was free from significant medication errors for Resident #109 reviewed for significant medication errors. -The facility failed to ensure that Resident #109's anticonvulsant medications was administered as ordered by his physician. This failure could affect residents who received medication placing them at risk of not receiving the therapeutic effect of the mediations and could result in declining health status. Findings included: Record review of Resident #109 's admission face sheet dated 09/01/2023 revealed she was a [AGE] year-old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was initially admitted on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included Seizure disorder or Epilepsy, type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications, hypertensive heart disease without heart failure, Unspecified dementia, unspecified severity, without behavioral disturbance, psychotic disturbance, mood disturbance, and anxiety Record 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.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-01 · tag F0814 — failed to dispose of garbage properly — isolatedDispose of garbage and refuse properly.
What the surveyor found here — the official record, unedited, may be distressing
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to dispose of garbage and refuse properly for 1 of 1 dumpster reviewed for garbage disposal. -The facility failed to ensure the dumpster lids and doors were secured. This failure could place residents at risk of infection from improperly disposed garbage. Findings include: Observation on 08-29-23 at 8:50 am revealed the facility's dumpster area, which was in the lot behind the dietary department had a commercial -size dumpster ¾ full of garbage and the top lid was missing Interview on 08-29-23 at 8:50 am, the Food Service Director stated that the dumpster lids always must be closed to keep vermin, pests and insects out of the dumpster and from entering the facility. Record review of facility policy and procedure Dispose of Garbage and Refuse dated 8/2017 revealed all garbage and refuse will be collected and disposed of in a safe and efficient manner. Procedures read in part .that the Food Service Director will ensure that appropriate lids are closed and provided for the dumpster.
- Potential for harm · D2023-09-01 · 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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain clinical records in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices that are complete and accurately documented for 1 of 6 residents (Resident #91) observed for accuracy of medical records in that: The facility failed to discontinue Resident #91's skin tear and rashes on progress notes and weekly skin assessment. This deficient practice could place residents at risk for errors in care and treatment. Findings include: Resident #91 Record review of Resident #91 face sheet revealed a [AGE] year-old female was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses were diabetes mellitus (elevated levels of blood glucose), Morbid obesity (weight is more than 80 to 100 pounds above ideal body weight), atherosclerotic heart disease (thickening or hardening of the arteries), and anxiety disorder (persistent and excessive worry that interferes with daily activities). Record review of…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- 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
$8,018 in federal fines across 1 penalty.
- $8,018 — penalty dated 2024-11-07
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 HMG HEALTHCARE — 31 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 | 4 of 5 | 3.1 | +0.9 vs chain |
| Health inspection | 4 of 5 | 2.8 | +1.2 vs chain |
| Staffing | 2 of 5 | 1.8 | +0.2 vs chain |
| Quality measures | 3 of 5 | 4.4 | -1.4 vs chain |
The other 30 homes this chain runs (chain average 3.1★, per CMS)
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 | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| STRAMECKI, ANTHONY | Individual | CORPORATE DIRECTOR; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 04/01/2018 |
| MURRELL, EDWARD | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 04/01/2018 |
| ROLLO, JEFFERY | Individual | CORPORATE OFFICER; OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 04/01/2018 |
| CIBC BANK USA | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2018 |
| FRIENDSWOOD TRS LLC | Organization | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 04/01/2018 |
| BALSAMO, KRYSTAL | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/29/2021 |
| CULP, ROLAND | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/01/2012 |
| DASPIT, LAURENCE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/01/2012 |
| DOHN, WILLIAM | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/27/2019 |
| NAESETH, JODDIE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/20/2001 |
| NODARSE, YEISLENY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 08/30/2022 |
| PICO, ANA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/01/2012 |
| PRINCE, DEREK | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 02/01/2012 |
| REINARZ, CHRISTIAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 05/13/2024 |
| VRATIS, KACEY | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 04/01/2018 |
| WALSH, BRENT | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/03/2023 |
| WAY, GEORGE | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 04/01/2018 |
| CHP FRIENDSWOOD SNF LLC | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 06/27/2025 |
| FORVIS MAZARS LLP | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2018 |
| ZIONS BANCORPORATION | Organization | ADP OF THE SNF | since 04/01/2018 |
| STANBRIDGE, NORMA | Individual | ADP OF THE SNF | since 09/29/2014 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 35 rows in the source record cover these 21 parties — each is shown once here with every role it holds. Nothing is omitted. The source lists no ownership percentage for any of them — PECOS records a share only for equity interests, not for board or management roles.
5 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.
About 71% of this home’s resident-days are paid by Medicaid, which reimburses well below the cost of care in most states. Heavily Medicaid-dependent homes run on thinner budgets — a context worth holding next to the staffing and inspection record, not a fault in itself.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2024. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
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 675744. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2026-02-20, 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.