The Meridian
2228 Seawall Blvd, Galveston, TX 77550 · For profit - Corporation · 96 certified beds · (409) 763-6437 Medicare & Medicaid certified
The public record raises real questions here. Weigh the concerns below carefully.
- a strong health-inspection score (4/5) — the hardest rating to game (though it’s ranked within its own state, not nationally)
- no federal fines or payment denials on record
- a high payroll-based staffing rating (4/5)
- it has 1 actual-harm citation
- its facility-reported quality-measure rating is low (1/5)
One thing this read cannot see: what residents and families actually experience day to day. Public data misses the feel of a place — visit unannounced, ideally at a mealtime or on a weekend, talk to staff and families, and ask your tour questions.
A plain-English summary of the public record below — not a rating, ranking, or recommendation. We take no money from any facility.
| Health inspectionSurveyor-assigned, ranked within your stateInspector-verified | 4 of 5 |
| StaffingFrom payroll records (PBJ) | 4 of 5 |
| Quality measuresSelf-reported by the facility | 1 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 | 1 of 5 |
| Long-stay residentspeople who live here | 1 of 5 |
| Short-stay residentsrehab / post-hospital | 2 of 5 |
Quality-measure stars summarize outcomes CMS tracks from the assessments each home submits — avoidable hospitalizations and ER visits, falls with injury, pressure ulcers, unplanned weight loss, and long-term antipsychotic use. Because the underlying data is self-reported, weigh a high score against the independent inspection record. Long-stay = permanent residents; short-stay = rehab and post-hospital stays.
Trend — is this home getting better or worse?
Over 2025-02 to 2026-06, this home’s CMS overall rating fell from 5 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 | 17.2% | 15.8% | 15.4% | worse |
| Long-stay residents who lose too much weight | 4.2% | 3.0% | 5.4% | better |
| Long-stay residents with a catheter left in their bladder | 1.4% | 0.3% | 0.9% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with a urinary tract infection | 3.2% | 0.8% | 2.0% | worse than state‡ — see note marked double-dagger below the table |
| Long-stay residents with depressive symptoms | 55.2% | 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 | 2.6% | 3.3% | 3.3% | better |
| Long-stay residents whose ability to walk worsened | 17.6% | 14.0% | 16.1% | typical |
| Long-stay residents on antianxiety or hypnotic medication | 32.6% | 18.0% | 18.9% | worse |
| Long-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 100.0% | 98.0% | 95.3% | typical |
| Long-stay residents with pressure ulcers | 8.3% | 3.8% | 4.7% | worse |
| Long-stay residents with worsening bladder/bowel control | 18.7% | 13.4% | 21.2% | better |
| Long-stay residents who got an antipsychotic medication§ — see the note below the table | 16.7% | 9.6% | 17.1% | typical |
| Short-stay residents who newly got an antipsychotic medication | 1.7% | 1.5% | 1.4% | worse |
| Short-stay residents given the seasonal flu vaccine | 88.9% | 88.0% | 79.4% | better |
| Short-stay residents rehospitalized after admission | 32.9% | 25.7% | 22.6% | worse |
| Short-stay residents with an outpatient ER visit | 15.7% | 12.3% | 12.0% | worse |
| Long-stay hospitalizations per 1,000 resident days | 3.46 | 2.17 | 1.67 | worse |
| Long-stay outpatient ER visits per 1,000 resident days | 1.70 | 2.06 | 1.80 | typical |
‡ 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.
59.4% of the Medicare patients who left this home got back to the community and stayed there for at least 31 days — CMS rates that better than the national rate. This is CMS’s risk-adjusted rate over 127 Medicare stays in Oct 2022–Sep 2024, and CMS’s own comparison — not ours.
Met the expected recovery: 48.6% 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 70 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 0.40 therapist hours per resident per day in 2026Q1 — more than 68% of the 13,892 homes that report any therapy hours at all.
Weekend therapy: weekend therapy hours are 9% 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 | 59.4%CMS range 51.1–68.2 | 51.5% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | better than U.S. |
| Went back to hospitalRate of potentially preventable hospital readmissions 30 days after discharge from a SNF | 10.1%CMS range 7.2–14.4 | 10.7% | Oct 2022–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Met the expected recoveryPercentage of residents who are at or above an expected ability to care for themselves and move around at discharge | 48.6% | 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 | 61.4% | 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 | 95.1% | 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 | 93.6% | 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 | 98.2% | 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 | 3.3% | 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 | 6.7%CMS range 3.9–11.4 | 7.1% | Oct 2023–Sep 2024 | no different from U.S. |
| Medicare spending per stayMedicare Spending Per Beneficiary (MSPB) for residents in SNFs | 1.18 | 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 96 beds and averages 61.3 residents a day — about 64% occupied, or roughly 35 beds typically open. It often has substantial empty capacity — worth asking why, since low census can reflect either a new or shrinking home or one families are avoiding. This is a CMS average, not live availability — no public source publishes real-time vacancies, and a home can be full the day you call. Confirm with the home, and if you need a Medicaid bed specifically, ask about that separately: a home with open beds may still not have an open Medicaid bed.
Against a benchmark — not a legal minimum. In May 2024 CMS finalized the first federal staffing floor for nursing homes: 3.48 total nurse hours per resident per day, including 0.55 RN hours and 2.45 nurse-aide hours. Its hour requirements never took effect and are no longer on the books. Homes had until 2026 (2027 if rural) to comply, and that deadline never arrived: a federal court vacated the hour requirements in April 2025 (CMS has appealed), Congress then barred enforcement until 2034, and CMS formally repealed them by rule effective February 2026. This home is not required to meet these numbers, and is not violating anything by missing them. We still show the comparison because the figures are CMS’s own published estimate of adequate staffing, which makes them a useful yardstick — but they are our benchmark, not federal law: this home’s total nurse staffing of 4.47 hrs/resident/day is at or above the 3.48-hour benchmark and RN staffing of 0.84 is at or above the 0.55-hour RN benchmark and nurse-aide staffing of 2.44 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 4.11 hrs/resident/day on weekends vs 4.62 on weekdays — 11% thinner on weekends. RN hours go from 0.90 to 0.68 per resident-day. (Payroll-based daily records; the national median home is 15% thinner on weekends.)
This home’s total nursing-staff turnover of 53% is about the same as 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.
14 citations, most serious first — scroll within the box to see all.
- Actual harm · G2022-07-07 · tag F0690 — failed to manage incontinence, catheters, and urinary infections — isolatedProvide appropriate care for residents who are continent or incontinent of bowel/bladder, appropriate catheter care, and appropriate care to prevent urinary tract infections.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a resident who was incontinent of bowel received appropriate treatment and services to prevent fecal impaction for 1of 33 residents (CR # 62) reviewed for incontinent bowel care in that: The facility failed to ensure CR #62 did not develop bowel complications while at the facility that resulted in hospitalization and a fecal impaction. This failure could place residents at risk for developing bowel complications including impaction and hospitalization. Findings included: Record review of CR #62's admission record dated 7/6/22 revealed she was a [AGE] year old female who admitted on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses to included: unspecified hemorrhoids (swollen and inflamed veins in the rectum and anus that cause discomfort and bleeding), atrial fibrillation and flutter (condition in which the heart's upper chambers (atria) beat too quickly), shortness of breath, presence of heart valve replacement, hemiplegia…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-10-30 · tag F0640 — isolatedEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident assessments were electronically transmitted with MDS data to the CMS System for discharge return not anticipated for 2 of 32 residents (CR #1 & 58) reviewed for encoding and transmitting resident assessments. - The facility failed to submit/transmit/export a Return Not Anticipated MDS for CR #1- within the required timeframe. - The facility failed to submit/transmit/export a Return Not Anticipated MDS for CR #58 within the required timeframe. This failure could place discharged residents at risk of not receiving proper Medicaid benefits after discharge and of not having their assessments transmitted/exported timely. Findings included: -CR #1 Record review of CR # 1's face sheet dated 10/30/24 revealed an 81-year -old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included anemia (low red blood count), hypothyroidism (a disorder of the endocrine system in which the thyroid gland does not produce enough thyroid hormones), heart…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-10-30 · 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 observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that each resident received an accurate assessment, reflective of the resident's status at the time of the assessment, for ---2 of 16 (Resident #19 and #47) residents reviewed for MDS accuracy. -Resident #19 was not assessed for her lack of natural teeth on her oral cavity. -Resident #47's admission assessment did not reflect his cognition and his lack of natural teeth on his oral cavity. These failures could place residents at risk for not receiving care and services to meet their needs, for diminished function of health, and for regressions in their overall health. Findings included: - Resident #19: Record review of Resident #19's face sheet dated 10/29/24 revealed a 73-year -old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included hypokalemia (low blood potassium levels), anxiety, heart disease, osteoarthritis (condition that causes the breakdown of cartilage in the joints, leading to pain…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-10-30 · tag F0657 — failed to keep the care plan current — isolatedDevelop 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 observations, interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan was reviewed and revised by the interdisciplinary team after each assessment for 1 of 16 resident reviewed for care plan accuracy (Resident # 27). --Resident # 27's care plan was not revised to reflect a healed deep tissue injury. This failure placed residents at risk of not receiving care according to their individual needs. Findings include: Record review of Resident # 27's face sheet revealed a [AGE] year-old male with admission date 6/14/19 and diagnoses including Diabetes (too much sugar in the blood), hypertension (high blood pressure), heart disease (conditions affecting the heart), hemiplegia and hemiparesis following a stroke (partial or complete paralysis affecting one side of the body), muscle weakness, reduced mobility, chronic kidney disease (longstanding kidney disease leading to kidney failure). . Record review of the annual MDS dated [DATE] revealed Resident #27 had a BIMS score of 07…
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 · D2024-10-30 · tag F0661 — isolatedEnsure necessary information is communicated to the resident, and receiving health care provider at the time of a planned discharge.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
Based on record review and interviews, the facility failed to ensure completion of a discharge summary including a recapitulation of the resident's stay, final status at discharge and a reconciliation of medications for 1 resident of 1 resident (CR #64) reviewed for discharge summary. The closed record for Resident #64 that was reviewed did not contain a discharge summary that included a recapitulation of the resident's stay. This failure could place residents at risk of not receiving needed care and services after discharge. Findings included: The closed record face sheet for Resident #64 revealed an admission date of 07/24/2024 with diagnoses that included unspecified fracture of left femur, presence of left artificial hip joint, hypertension (a condition in which the force of the blood against the artery wall is too high), and hyperlipidemia (excess lipids or fat in the blood). Interview with admission's director on 10/29/2024 at 2:35 PM stated that they could not get in contact with the resident, but the resident's brother stated the resident was not coming back to the facility…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2024-10-30 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, record review, and interviews, the facility failed to ensure each resident's drug regimen was free from unnecessary medications for 1 of 9 residents (Resident #38) reviewed for unnecessary medications. in that: -The facility failed to ensure Resident that Resident #38 did not have an appropriate diagnosis associated with the use of Abilifya and his clinical record did not contain a diagnosis beyond the diagnosis on the consent which was identified as psychotic behavior. This failure could place residents at risk for adverse drug reactions (unintended, harmful events attributed to the use of medicines) and receiving unnecessary medications. Findings included: Record review of Resident #38's face sheet dared 10/30/24 revealed a 72- year-old female admitted on to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included essential hypertension (high blood pressure, hypothyroidism (condition when the thyroid gland doesn't make enough thyroid hormone), alcohol dependence, Alzheimer's disease, and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · D2024-10-30 · tag F0921 — failed to keep a safe, functional, sanitary building — isolatedMake sure that the nursing home area is safe, easy to use, clean and comfortable for residents, staff and the public.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observations, interviews, and record review the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, sanitary, comfortable environment for 1 resident of 37 (Resident #11), staff and visitors in 1 resident room (room [ROOM NUMBER] W). Resident #11's room [ROOM NUMBER] had 2 unsecured oxygen tanks standing next to each other on the floor. This failure could place residents, staff, and visitors at risk of living and working in an unsafe, dangerous environment. Findings included: Record review of Resident # 11's admission Record dated 10/30/24 revealed she was a [AGE] year old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with the following diagnoses: diffuse traumatic brain injury with loss of consciousness of unspecified duration, post traumatic seizures ( seizures that occur after a traumatic brain injury), epilepsy and recurrent seizures (a brain disorder causing recurrent, uncontrolled jerking, movements caused by abnormal activity in the brain), tracheostomy status (surgical…
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 · D2024-10-30 · tag F0626 — isolatedPermit a resident to return to the nursing home after hospitalization or therapeutic leave that exceeds bed-hold policy.
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 establish and follow written policy on permitting residents to return to the facility after they were hospitalized for one (CR #1) of one resident reviewed for transfer/discharge. The facility failed to readmit CR#1 to the facility after she was sent to the hospital on [DATE]. This deficient practice could place residents at risk of being discharged and not allowed to return to the facility, causing a disruption in their care and services and potential decline in health. Findings included: Record review of CR # 1 face sheet dated 10/30/23 revealed an 81-year -old female admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnoses included anemia (low red blood count), hypothyroidism (a disorder of the endocrine system in which the thyroid gland does not produce enough thyroid hormones), heart disease, and lower back pain. Record review of CR#1's close MDS record indicated she was discharged from the facility on 11/29/24 coded as return not anticipated. Record…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Ecited before2023-09-14 · 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 ensure the comprehensive care plans were reviewed and revised by the Interdisciplinary team after each assessment for 2 of 13 residents reviewed for care plan accuracy (Residents # 15, #27). --Resident # 15's clinical chart did not contain a care plan for ADL assistance and had care plans for a healed stage 3 sacral ulcer and a healed sore on her great toe. --Resident #27's was care planned for wander guard for risk of elopement, which had been removed by facility Findings include: Record review of Resident #15's face sheet revealed a [AGE] year-old female with admission date of 12/14/22 and diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease (progressive disease that destroys memory and mental functions), malignant neoplasm (cancer) of female breast, cerebral infarction (disruption of blood flow to the brain), functional Quadriplegia (paralysis that affects all 4 limbs), hypertension (high blood pressure). Record review of Resident #15'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.
- Potential for harm · E2023-09-14 · tag F0761 — failed to label and store drugs safely — patternEnsure drugs and biologicals used in the facility are labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles; and all drugs and biologicals must be stored in locked compartments, separately locked, compartments for controlled drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure in accordance with State and Federal laws, all drugs and biologicals were stored securely in locked compartments for two (Nurse Medication Cart Second Floor and Medication Aide Medication Cart Third Floor) of six medication carts observed for storage of medications. The facility failed to ensure the Nurse medication cart second floor and Medication Aide medication cart third cart were secured when unattended. These failures could place residents at risk for loss of prescribed medications, resident's safety, and drug diversion. Findings included: Observation and interview on the second floor on 09/12/2023 at 2:28 PM revealed the Nurse medication cart was parked unlocked in the hall near room [ROOM NUMBER]. No staff, residents or visitors were in the hall. As the observation continued at 2:31 PM, LVN A arrived at the medication cart from room [ROOM NUMBER]. LVN A stated this was the medication cart she was working on. LVN A stated…
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 · D2023-09-14 · 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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to coordinate an assessment with Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review program (PASRR) under Medicaid and initiate services within 30 days after the date that the services are agreed upon in the IDT meeting, to ensure that individuals with mental illness or intellectual developmental disabilities receive the care and services they need in the most appropriate setting for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #44) reviewed for pre-admission screenings. -The facility failed to submit a Form 1018, Request for a Customized Manual Wheelchair (CMCW) within 30 days of the date that the services were agreed upon in an IDT meeting addressing Resident #44's needs. This failure could place 2 other residents requiring PASRR services at risk of them not having their special needs assessed and met by the facility. Findings include: An observation of Resident #44 on 9/12/2023 at 9:39 a.m., the resident was sitting in his specialized wheelchair, groomed, and…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · E2022-07-07 · 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 ensure that the facility provided 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 1 out of 14 residents (Resident #110) reviewed for pharmacy services. The facility failed to ensure that Resident #110's Hydromorphine (Dilaudid) pain medication was ordered from the pharmacy and received timely. This failure could place residents whose medications were supervised by the facility at risk of experiencing serious side effects from possible interruptions to their medication regimen. Findings Included: Record review of Resident #110's face sheet revealed she was a [AGE] year old female who was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. She was diagnosed with pain, scoliosis (a sideway curvature of the spine), fusion of spine (surgery to permanently connect two or more vertebrae in the spine, eliminating motion…
This is the beginning of the surveyor’s statement, cut to keep the page readable — the full 2567 continues past this point and often ends with the findings that matter most, such as whether an immediate jeopardy was removed before the surveyors left. The complete statement of deficiencies is a public record: request it from your state survey agency, or ask the home for its 2567 and plan of correction — it must make them available to residents and families.
- Potential for harm · Dcited before2022-07-07 · tag F0640 — isolatedEncode each resident’s assessment data and transmit these data to the State within 7 days of assessment.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete and transmit a resident assessment within the required time frame for 1 of 33 residents (CR#1) reviewed for data completion and transmission in that: - CR #1's did not have a Discharge MDS completed within the required timeframe. - CR#1 did not have a Discharge MDS transmitted within the required timeframe. This failure affected 1 prior resident and could place an additional 52 current residents at risk of not having their assessments transmitted timely. Findings Include: Record review of CR #1's admission sheet revealed she was a [AGE] year old female who admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [DATE] and discharged on 2/9/2022. Her diagnoses included insomnia (inability to sleep), other benign neuroendocrine tumors (a tumor that forms from cells that release hormones into the blood), iron deficiency anemia (a condition of too little iron in the body which results in blood lacking adequate healthy red 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 · Dcited before2022-07-07 · tag F0757 — failed to avoid unnecessary drugs — isolatedEnsure each resident’s drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs.
What the surveyor found here — an excerpt from the official record, may be distressing
NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure each resident's drug regimen was free from the administration of unnecessary drugs (in the presence of adverse consequences which indicate the dose should be reduced or discontinued/for excessive duration/without adequate indications for use/duplicate therapy), for 1 of 3 residents (Resident #8) reviewed for unnecessary psychotropic medications. Resident #8 was receiving antidepressant, Sertraline (Zoloft), for diagnosis of depression without adequate indications for continuing the same dose. The deficient practice could place the resident at risk for complications resulting from receiving unnecessary medication. Findings included: Resident #8 Record review of the admission sheet for Resident #8 revealed an [AGE] year old[AGE] year old female that who admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Her diagnosis included depression, hyperlipidemia, insomnia, dementia, hypertension, congestive heart failure, venous insufficiency, acute kidney…
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
No federal fines in the current CMS record.
Who owns this facility
| Owner / manager | Type | Role | Since |
|---|---|---|---|
| BALENTINE, JAY | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/25/2010 |
| LOZANO, RAMIRO | Individual | DIRECT OWNERSHIP INTEREST; CORPORATE OFFICER; ADP OF THE SNF | since 03/24/2010 |
| BUELOW, SEAN | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/30/2025 |
| GREENE, SHERITA | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL | since 11/29/2021 |
| KAUSHIK, VINOD | Individual | OPERATIONAL/MANAGERIAL CONTROL; ADP OF THE SNF | since 01/30/2025 |
CMS files one row per role, so the 10 rows in the source record cover these 5 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.
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.
This home reported $652K paid to related parties (affiliated landlords or management companies) in its most recent cost report. A reported operating loss is common in this industry and is not by itself a sign of trouble — but paired with large related-party payments it can mean profit is being taken elsewhere in the ownership structure.
Source: CMS Healthcare Provider Cost Reporting Information System (HCRIS), Medicare cost report Form CMS-2540 · fiscal year 2023. Facilities self-file these reports; figures are unaudited and a year or two behind. A home with no Medicare cost report on file shows no figures here.
Cost & finances
Straight from this home’s Medicare cost report (CMS, FY2023). These are its operating economics — what it costs to run per resident-day and what it collects on average across Medicare, Medicaid, and private pay — not a private-pay quote. Your out-of-pocket cost depends on payer and room type, so ask the facility directly; a higher operating cost can reflect richer staffing or a sicker population. The cost-of-care planner shows regional benchmarks by care type.
What families pay in TX
This is a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home, so it can accept Medicaid for long-term care — like nearly all U.S. nursing homes. The private-pay figures below are what families without Medicaid pay; once a resident qualifies for Medicaid, out-of-pocket cost for covered nursing-home care is typically close to $0 (almost all of their income goes to the home as their share of the cost; they keep a small personal needs allowance — for clothing, haircuts, a phone — and Medicaid pays the rest). The amount of that allowance is set by each state. Confirm Medicaid-bed availability with the home, and see the Texas Medicaid page.
Median private-pay cost, CareScout (Genworth) 2025 Cost of Care Survey — a regional midpoint, not any single community’s rate. Private rooms and higher care levels cost more; ask for a current quote. Project your own in the cost-of-care planner.
Every figure above is reproduced from the CMS Provider Data Catalog (a public record), from the CMS extract processed 2026-08-01 — CMS provider number 676260. CMS refreshes its data monthly, and the star rating rests on the last standard inspection — dated 2024-10-30, 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.